24 replies to this topic

[GalaxyBluestar]

my first poll topic so it may not run smoothly and that's an apology in advance.

was on a forum topic about a streak commando pilot not happy that he couldn't run ecm with lasers, proberbly enjoying the cicada now but he went about the topic all wrong but maybe there's a discussion worth having. are you happy about your favorite mech or would you prefer extra varients to turn up with those hardpoint set ups you most desire.

for me i wanted a hardpoint set up and choose the mech that fit the bill rather than letting vanity or cbill farming steer me into a chasis then finding it to not have the points i wanted. am i alone in that?

-> biased bit approaching

seriously though this revolves around whether you don't mind actually being adventuors and man enough to pilot that 3rd vairent you have to for earning mech tree perks or would you want to water the earning process down by the devs providing more chassis varients to keep you in your playstyle all the time. yeah i know a bit of anger there but when people say it's annoying i have to earn my points for perks rather than easymoding all the way you do wonder how they manage in life when a game defeats them for hevean forfend forcing them to use another weapon. how did they survive the trial mechs?

rant over ->

so would you like everything to be able to carry everything or would you like mech to keep their more realistic unique rolls? democracy is open make your choice!

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 13 December 2012 - 02:11 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Some mechs could use more or better hard points.

The K2 Catapult for example could benefit from either ballistic or extra energy slots in its arms. The arms are suposed to hold its main guns, but it now forced to carry only 2 of them there, and since the game didn't have any good large energy weapons for a long time (I think the LL is kinda okay now...), all we got were Gauss or AC Kitties that don't even use the arms.

[De La Fresniere]

I wouldn't exactly like anyone to be able to carry anything, but it's true that when I look at any particular chassis, there's usually only one variant that suit my personal tastes (which is from ideal, especially given that you need to use three variants to unlock efficiencies). For some chassis, none of the variants have satisfactory harpoint configurations.

So many possible mechs, and yet any single player is likely to be interested in only a small percentage of them... it's a terrible waste.

[GalaxyBluestar]

i just worry that if this was implemented, you couldn't really call a hunchback a brawler if the two missle pod version came out and if you want a cata with more balistics what's wrong with the dragon? when we've got more chassis in general you'll find more available to your liking.

please keep in mind we will have many more mechs later!!!

[Poopy Joe]

I would love it if I could swap diffrrent arms for mechs. Add diiffrent weapons to my mech.

[semalferuzA]

I want to mount 40 MGs on a mech!

[Satan n stuff]

De La Fresniere, on 13 December 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

So many possible mechs, and yet any single player is likely to be interested in only a small percentage of them... it's a terrible waste.

Speak for yourself, I have no problems finding 3 variants of each chassis that I like, or for that matter liking different chassis, I like all of them.
That being said, there's a couple of mechs with crappy hardpoint layouts such as the Cicada 3C which could use some more energy hardpoints, or a major MG buff. Then there's the ones which have almost identical variants such as with the Hunchback 4J and 4SP which are almost identical in capabilities, with the only real difference being that one is optimized for LRMS while the other one is optimized for SRMs, a difference that is insignificant enough that not many players would want to own both. There's also the jenners where the only real differences between the D and the K are the extra missile hardpoint on the D and the extra module slot on the K.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 14 December 2012 - 04:31 AM.

[Ghogiel]

I want ECM on some of my mechs. ECM equiped AC20cats and raidbosses would be pretty sweet.

[ConnorSinclair]

if they would put attention on a Mauler, which would basically be a Munitions carrying Assault with Low heat it would make my day.

2X Ac20's, SRM6's and 2 medium las?

Yes please, it would dethrone the K2 in AC20's at the very least.

[Murphy7]

Need that Arrow IV system, with artillery firing to tag targets or picking an area on he battle map and sending ordinance.

Some popular ambush spots are going to get real hot, real fast. It would be glorious.

[Chrithu]

Again a biased vote that has badly phrased options. So I did not cast a vote since my answer is:

In general hardpoints are fine, there's just a few things missing which is a jenner variant with ballistic hardpoints (I do not see what's the point in having a jenner with 4 energy and 1 missile HPs and a jenner with 4 Energy and 2 missile HPs?) and a Cicada variant with missile Hardpoints. Other than that the variants are just fine as they are.

Edited by Jason Parker, 14 December 2012 - 06:44 AM.

[Pale Jackal]

More ECM variants.

Hard points are fine - variants like the Hunchback 4P should be unique and distinctive. I don't want to see everyone running a 8 Laser Cataphract.

Man, I would have loved it if the CTF-3D had less actuators in its arms though. The Catapult C1 can field a truly absurd number of heatsinks (10 outside the 300XL engine, for a total of 22 DHS) if you don't put Endo Steel on it. Whereas the Cataphract 3D with 4 LL can only mount a total of 18 with Endo Steel, or 20 without Endo Steel, due to actuators and weapon placement, and you SHOULD mount Endo Steel otherwise too many slots will go unfilled.

[sarkun]

***** n stuff, on 14 December 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

Then there's the ones which have almost identical variants such as with the Hunchback 4J and 4SP which are almost identical in capabilities, with the only real difference being that one is optimized for LRMS while the other one is optimized for SRMs, a difference that is insignificant enough that not many players would want to own both. There's also the jenners where the only real differences between the D and the K are the extra missile hardpoint on the D and the extra module slot on the K.

Disagree. 4J and 4SP may not be very different but they're different enough -> 4J has one more Energy Hardpoint, total, but has much worse layout than 4SP - 4 energy hardpoints in arms! That is awesome, plus there's the number of launch tubes - 20 on the J is plenty much for LRM support, 12 on the SP - not so.

The jenners on the other hand... well you've got one variant that's just plain worse than the other.

[CDLord HHGD]

For my desires? No hardly.

For balanced game play? They are just fine

[Pale Jackal]

sarkun, on 14 December 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

Disagree. 4J and 4SP may not be very different but they're different enough -> 4J has one more Energy Hardpoint, total, but has much worse layout than 4SP - 4 energy hardpoints in arms! That is awesome, plus there's the number of launch tubes - 20 on the J is plenty much for LRM support, 12 on the SP - not so.

The jenners on the other hand... well you've got one variant that's just plain worse than the other.

But I've heard that fewer number of tubes actually tightens LRM clustering, so while it may slightly increase your weapon cooldown, it will concentrate your damage better.

So, maybe the 4SP is actually a better LRM boat.

On the other hand, the Centurion Prime is a monster with point blank SRMs because you've 18 tightly clustered SRMs coming from the left torso. Get up and hug someone and you will rock them. So, maybe the 4J is better at SRMs? Maybe not, its launcher may be in a worse position.

I think the 4J could use a little more differentiation from the 4SP, but 1 laser hardpoint is worth something.

The Jenner K is definitely ridiculous and PGI should be ashamed of themselves. Awful, awful design. If everyone was maxing out their module slots, maybe I'd feel differently.

[GalaxyBluestar]

***** n stuff, on 14 December 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

Speak for yourself, I have no problems finding 3 variants of each chassis that I like, or for that matter liking different chassis, I like all of them.
That being said, there's a couple of mechs with crappy hardpoint layouts such as the Cicada 3C which could use some more energy hardpoints, or a major MG buff. Then there's the ones which have almost identical variants such as with the Hunchback 4J and 4SP which are almost identical in capabilities, with the only real difference being that one is optimized for LRMS while the other one is optimized for SRMs, a difference that is insignificant enough that not many players would want to own both. There's also the jenners where the only real differences between the D and the K are the extra missile hardpoint on the D and the extra module slot on the K.

well don't worry cause the game's getting more mechs each month or so, you'll be a happy flea and highlander pilot in a while. that's why i think this "more hardpoints please" stuff will only make the game far too easy and unimaginative.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 December 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Jason Parker, on 14 December 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Again a biased vote that has badly phrased options. So I did not cast a vote since my answer is:

In general hardpoints are fine, there's just a few things missing which is a jenner variant with ballistic hardpoints (I do not see what's the point in having a jenner with 4 energy and 1 missile HPs and a jenner with 4 Energy and 2 missile HPs?) and a Cicada variant with missile Hardpoints. Other than that the variants are just fine as they are.

first off pgi deffenately didn't make up just any config the mechs are based on loadouts in battle tech lore. the hardpoint system was created in MW4 so you don't put 3 ppcs in a torso with an lrm pod like the rediculous MW3 had. mech have been designed extremely well from this dev team which is why i'm still here and not one of the jenner lag streack cat ecm qq lobby. this game has terrific potential in diversity of mechs. however you'll throw that out the window if a mech has infinite chassis varients like a one ring to rule them all scenario. people will just tool up on tonnage vs speed and we'll have silly MW3 standard builds again. the poll is designed upon your desires for the direction of new mechs and the amount of varients we should have. so explain how it's biased to give you the voting option that no the variety and standards are a good offering or no we really need more on offer within chassis? sounds like you would vote no i like the stable as it is just dissapointed they never made a few of such and such. that won't matter when new chassis will come to fill those jenner cicada "missing" roles anyways.

[Belisarius1]

We need more 'mechs, not more hardpoints on existing 'mechs. If anything, the hardpoint system needs to be made more restrictive.

PGI seems to be intending to make money consistently and continuously by selling variants. If the current 'mechs were adjusted to do everything anyone's heart could desire, there would be absolutely no reason to grind for or purchase future variants.

Even as things are, I don't see much point once we get past about a dozen chassis.

[Kelb]

really bad poll

[Asmosis]

new mechs are being released ~monthly, each new mech has at least 3 variants so thats a new mech build every week or two. Thats plenty new stuff.

Based on that i voted for the first option, even though i'd love to use MW4 hardpoint system to chuck 20 odd machine guns or small/med lasers into a mech thats horribly unbalanced.