213 replies to this topic

[Torquemada]

Hollander 35t can mount large ballistic weapons due to its specialist chassis that has to compromise on many common light mech features, Raven 35t shouldn't be able to mount large ballistic weapons, but currently does in MWO, where does it put them? These two images explain the sort of situation I want to see able to be addressed by adding the suggested feature:



Please note, this is a suggestion for how to balance hard point use, it is not advocating that every single hard point in every Mech must be restricted, merely asking if this is a suitable option to add a second layer of balancing for PGI to implement to enable some hard points to be restricted if needed.

*Edit 2* Alternative system to hard point size (slot number) restrictions for a given hard point would be maximum tonnage, have added a second part to the poll to find out which would be the preferred option as a means of balancing Mech builds for a specific hard point. You must 'delete vote' to be able to vote in the second poll (and re-vote in the first).

*Edit* Updated with poll as requested for new suggestion guidelines.

As a solution to the 'insane' and 'cheese' builds commonly referred to, perhaps combining the current hardpoint system with a maximum capacity system (similar to that used in MW4) for some slots is the solution?

To give a couple of examples:

A Commando 2D is currently capable of using 2 energy weapons in its right arm. As it stands this means you can even cram an ERPPC into a tiny Commando.... Using the alternative system I propose you still have the 2 energy hard points for the right arm, but you combine it with a maximum slots being available. There are two ways to do this, either a) a total space allocation available e.g. of 2 slots (which will prevent ERPPC's being installed) or b ) allocated 1 slot per energy point for this chassis (thus limiting energy installation to light and medium lasers only) or 2 slots enabling large lasers also to be fitted, or one hard point with 2 slots and one hardpoint with 1 slot, enabling one to mount up to a single large laser, the other restricted to medium or small.

The Stalker 3F enables a 6 PPC/ERPPC Stalker, or 'cheese' build. Now this is because it has 6 energy hardpoints, located in 2x LA, 2 x RA, LT and RT. Each location has more than six slots available so can be crammed full of ERPPC's. If my suggested system was introduced this could be restricted by also allocating a maximum capacity for one or more hardpoints. Perhaps allow up to 4 in each arm, therefore limited the Mech to a maximum of 2 x PPC's in total for arms, and e.g. 3 in the left torso (allowing for a third PPC) and only 1 slot for the right torso (maximum medium lasers). This would immediately limited the build to 3 ERPPC's and then either medium/small in all other hard points. Alternatively the same build could use up to five large lasers, two per arm and 1 in left torso.

I've had crazy builds myself, one of my favourites was my AC20 Raven 2x... It was completely wrong in every way and given even I don't think it logically made sense it probably shouldn't have been allowed. If this system of having the additional layer of slot limitation able to be added for a given hard point, it would be very easy to restrict a Raven from mounting an AC20 by putting the maximum slots able to be used below 10.

The important things to bear in mind with this suggestion are:

1) Not every hard point has to include any slot based size restrictions.
2) This system could give PGI a relatively easy way to balance Mechs if cheese builds are discovered.
3) Ultimately the system should provide balance to the force to MWO by preventing crazy builds that shouldn't really be possible e.g. a Gauss Rifle in a Commando or a 'Splatcat' with 6 x SRM 6's...
4) This doesn't mean each slot can be filled with a weapon, if a single hard points has up to 4 slots available this is still a single weapon allowed, but that weapon can be up to a size four for critical slots.

Edited by Torquemada, 18 March 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[Renthrak]

You seem to be mistaken regarding several facts. The Stalker 5M can carry a maximum of 4 PPCs. The fifth energy hard point is in the center torso. The Stalker 3F, 4N, and 5S can carry 6 PPCs, with two energy hard points in each arm, and one in each side torso. I would vastly prefer the existing arrangement rather than your suggestion, which would allow a Stalker to carry a dozen medium lasers. Which, by the way, is exactly the same alpha strike damage as the 6 PPC build, but with a higher rate of fire.

As for an AC20 Raven, the only possible way to core a big 'Mech from behind in 2 shots would involve an ammo explosion. Assuming you aren't firing at something that has already taken a beating from someone else, which ceases to be anything worth talking about.

I personally despise MW4's weapon slot system. Taking the customization that has been the staple of MechWarrior from the beginning and dumbing it down to color-coded blocks was just plain insulting. I was quite relieved to find that MWO has returned to the critical slot system, and I think that weapon hardpoints are a perfectly reasonable way to impose some limitations without throwing away the system that has been used for so long.

[Torquemada]

Maybe I didn't make my idea clear enough. Or perhaps using the MW4 system as an analogy was a bit too simplistic.

What I was proposing is to keep the current hardpoint system but add in a second layer involving a maximum number of slots available per hardpoint. So while the hardpoint number e.g. 2 energy, allows any two energy weapons to be equipped, if it was combined with a maximum capacity in total (e.g. 5) or per slot then you reduce the options for that slot. Limit it to 5 in this case and you can now only equip a single PPC because you need 3 slots each. Limit the two hardpoint to two slots each and you can't use PPC's at all for either hardpoint.

So if we just look at e.g. the Left Torso of two mechs. Lets assume one is a 25t light mech while the other is a 100t assault mech. If both have under the current system the ability to mount a single ballistic weapon then in theory both could mount an AC20. It may be a struggle to get the weight for the light but lets ignore that issue.

If instead we use a second layer then perhaps the assault mech could have no secondary restriction for slots available for its single ballistic weapon so it could fit anything including (in the future) a Longtom which takes up the most slots. While for the light it may have its hard point limited to a maximum of 1-3 slots, this would mean in practice it could only use either a SINGLE machine gun or AC2. Alternatively if it was allowed up to 4 slots it could have the option to also use a SINGLE AC5. But larger weapons like Gauss, AC10/20 or LBX10 would not fit because they would be too large for that mech.

This is what I'm suggesting that by adding a second layer of limitation (when needed) you could make Mech builds much more realistic. It already effectively happens for CT energy slots where you only have 2 spare slots due to your engine and internals taking up the rest. So in this instance a mech with two hardpoints for lasers in CT can either equip 2 small or medium lasers or a single large laser but cannot fit a PPC/ERPPC because it uses 3 slots.

What I would hope is that a system like this would make tuning mech builds easier to avoid situation where non-canon loadouts can currently be put together. In TT there's no way to equip a AC20 on a Raven (iirc), and all that's needed now to prevent it being equipped is to limit that one hardpoint to less than 10 slots.

Edited by Torquemada, 01 March 2013 - 05:26 AM.

[Beeman]

It could work like it does in MechWarrior Tactics. Essentially the MW4 system but with hard limitations on the number of items you can equip.

https://mwtactics.co...ech-bay-part-2/

Not a bad system, if you ask me. Freedom, limits, balance. Otherwise, what you're suggesting isn't bad because it essentially uses the system we've got now with an additional set of rules to it to prevent you from goin' nuts.

[Adrienne Vorton]

there are several problems with this...

1st of all: this would mean you can always downgrade, but in most cases not upgrade any weapon...
which leads to the second problem: you will not be able to customize very well w/o leaving several tons unused...
which essentially means (in many cases) you cannot customize at all

2nd: in OP´s suggestion, try to explain to someone why he can mount a large weapon in his one sidetorso, but not in the otherone...
which leads to the next problem: how will anybody judge what size of weapons can be mounted where?
and i am sure there are several more issues i don´t wanna think about now

basically before implementing such a system you should A) weither TOTALLY throw away the whole BT system or just remove cutomization completely, because with BOTH restrictions at once, the limits would nearly result in that anyway...

Beeman, on 01 March 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

It could work like it does in MechWarrior Tactics. Essentially the MW4 system but with hard limitations on the number of items you can equip.

they do it the other way round... they restrict some sizes, but not the type of weapons... what i like aboutit is it encourages more mixed setups... but i din´t test it enough to give a real judgemet



1 can see this K(wahtever) carry alot more AC´s than it could in MWO...
or 16m lasers (if each block can carry only ONE weapon regardless of the slots in each block)

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 01 March 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[Beeman]

Well, I wasn't exactly pointing out that you could equip any weapon to any slot. From what I understand, that's a clantech option. Or maybe I"m wrong on that, I don't know.

But the way they have slots laid out is what I was pointing at, even a small laser takes up four crit slots because those four crit slots are one hardpoint.

[Zyllos]

I think they just need to add classifications of hardpoint sizes and types.

All hardpoints contain a Size and Type modifier.

There are three, Small, Medium, and Large, Size modifiers. Size modifiers allow for 1 weapon of the same size or one catagory size smaller to fit in that location.

There are four, Energy, Ballistic, Missile, and Omni, Type modifiers. Type modifiers allow for 1 weapon of a given type to fit in a location. The Omni Type modifier allows all to be equipped in a location.

Thus, a Battlemech will never contain Omni Type modifiers to their mount locations while Omnimechs will never have specific Type modifiers. Size modifiers will be enforced for both specific and Omni Type modifiers.

This gives differences between Battlemechs (having specific Type modifiers) and Omnimechs (having Omni Type modifiers) but still have limitations on location of hardpoints, Size Type modifiers, and number of allowed hardpoints. This should give enough freedom and limitations on various chassis of mechs, for both Battlemechs and Omnimechs, to allow for the three variation rule needed for a mech to be releasable for it's timeline.

Edited by Zyllos, 29 April 2013 - 09:19 AM.

[Metafox]

I really like the idea of using the MW4 hardpoint size limitations. It would give each variant much more personality and make things like large ballistics a much bigger deal. Instead of being able to slap an AC20 or a gauss onto any mech with a ballistic hardpoint, a player would actually have to choose a variant that's capable of accommodating such a massive gun. I don't believe that this would limit customization. The challenge and fun of customization is in working around limitations and a hardpoint size limitation would improve the fun and challenge.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that PGI has said that they won't use any kind of hardpoint size limitations. I'm guessing that it's probably a budgetary constraint. They'd have to take the extra time to determine exactly what size they want each hardpoint to be, and they'd have to spend a great deal of time on balancing the hardpoints. From what I've heard, they're done with the hardpoint system and they've moved on to other things.

[Big Giant Head]

Example:

• AC/20, requires 3 ballistic hardpoints in one section
  
• AC/10, requires 2 ballistic hardpoints in one section
  
• AC/5 (and AC/2), requires 1 ballistic hardpoints in one section

Crit slots system stays as it is so just for another example you can mount 1 AC/20 in Hunchbacks shoulder, 1 AC/10 and 1 UAC/5 (or AC/2), or 3 whatever...


Of course this would change energy hardpoints as well and with it you will have to change the number of the energy hardpoints does every mech (currently) have
Example:

• Awesomes hardpoints, 8V variant has 3 energy weapon hardpoint (except for the head hardpoint),2 in left torso and 1 in arm - so if you want to balance it out you should put 6 energy hardpoint to left torso and 2 in right arm

Edited by Big Giant Head, 05 March 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[focuspark]

Big Giant Head, on 05 March 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Example:

• AC/20, requires 3 ballistic hardpoints in one section
  
• AC/10, requires 2 ballistic hardpoints in one section
  
• AC/5 (and AC/2), requires 1 ballistic hardpoints in one section

Crit slots system stays as it is so just for another example you can mount 1 AC/20 in Hunchbacks shoulder, 1 AC/10 and 1 UAC/5 (or AC/2), or 3 whatever...



Of course this would change energy hardpoints as well and with it you will have to change the number of the energy hardpoints does every mech (currently) have
Example:

• Awesomes hardpoints, 8V variant has 3 energy weapon hardpoint (except for the head hardpoint),2 in left torso and 1 in arm - so if you want to balance it out you should put 6 energy hardpoint to left torso and 2 in right arm

Something like this could work too. There's no perfect solution until the devs balance the weapons properly.

[Torquemada]

I have updated this post to include a poll as per the new suggestion guidelines. I have also clarified the suggestion in the initial post to hopefully clear up some of the points raised by posters after I initially posted this a few days ago.

[Rubidiy]

hardpoints should be differed to prevent players from making builds like 6 PPCs or 6 SRMs. It is clearly a question of game balance on it's highest level. The game has become a war of PPCs and SRMs. It is just as stupid as it is simple to use.
Now, when developers decided to release one new mech every month, they have to think about how they are going to differ them. Currently the difference between chasises is not that big. For instanse, I can equip my CTF-1x with 5 PPCs and see no reason for buying a 6 PPC Stalker. In suggested system both won't be able to be equipped by more than 2 or 3 PPCs. It's just unnatural for a Raven to have an AC/20 or 3 ER PPC's.

[UberFubarius]

Rubidiy, on 06 March 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

hardpoints should be differed to prevent players from making builds like 6 PPCs or 6 SRMs.

Not sure about the 6 PPC, but I think its somewhat impossible (at least without making it utterly non-intuitive) using hardpoint and critslots to stop a 6SRM cat without making the Cat-A1 utterly useless (unless you somehow require SRM to use more hard-point/crit-slot then LRM for some reason).

I do like "Big Head Giant's" multi-hardpoint system. It also make some sense in that a hard-point should be something that can withstand a weapons' firing need (for ballistic/missile, a hardpoint need to withstand the recoil. For energy, the hardpoint need to supply enough energy).

Still won't stop 6 SRMs cat without making Cat A-1.

I would suggest a different way of balancing SRMs. From what I understand, SRM/splatcat's annoyance is that they can do all those damage in one burst. How about requiring that ALL missile weapons mounted in the same area (say, the right arm) cannot fire simultaneously. Instead when attempts are made to fire them simultaneous, they're fired in sequence at a 0.5 ~ 1 second interval. It doesn't make A1 useless if they decide to do a pure LRM boat (LRM flight time is long enough that the added 1~2 seconds probably don't matter much). It will require an SRM/splatcat pilot to essentially keep the aim for at least 1~2 seconds (kind of like lasers, or pulse laser).

The background explanation can go as thus.
"Individual missile pods are designed to prevent missiles fired from it from prematurely detonating adjacent missiles in the same pod, whether from collision or from their super-heated exhaust. However, such protection do not extend to missiles from another pod. To prevent the condition of missile-explosion-to-face, missile pods in the same area will fire in sequence of 0.5~1 second interval instead of simultaneously."

[schlaepf81]

I like the idea and i voted Yes.

Still i fear that heavy and assault mechs will have a big advantage with this system, or some of there variants will become total useless...?

[Joker Two]

One serious issue is how to implement hardpoint restrictions without changing the core construction rules, and thus invalidating existing stock variants.

I recommend doing so as follows:

All existing and future weapons would be placed into Small and Large categories:

Small: SLAS, MLAS, FLAMER, TAG, MGUN, AC/2, AC/5, SRM-2, SRM-4, LRM-5, NARC, and variants of the above (i.e. Pulse, Ultra, Streak, and future ER and LB-X variants).

Large: LLAS, PPC, AC/10, AC/20, GAUSS, SRM-6, LRM-10, LRM-15, LRM-20, and variants of the above (i.e. Pulse, ER, LB-X, and future Streak and Ultra variants).

Large weapons would then require Large hardpoint slots of the relevant weapon type, while Small weapons could be placed in Small or Large hardpoint slots. To apply this to chassis, any hardpoint that holds a Large weapon in that chassis's stock configuration becomes a Large hardpoint, and all other hardpoints become Small.

Example situations (using the most commonly decried "boats", "cheese builds", etc):

CPLT-K2: 2 Large Energy (each Arm), 2 Small Energy and 2 Small Ballistic (each side Torso). This fixes the -K2's primary role as an energy combatant, while still allowing players to use small-caliber ACs to field sustained-fire ballistic builds.

CPLT-A1: 4 Large Missile (2 each Arm). This cuts down on the problem of SSRM or SRM boats by decreasing the number of launchers, but preserves the LRM volley potential, and still allows people to field heavy SRM armaments without becoming excessive.

STK-??: 2 Large Energy, 2 Large Missile, the rest Small. Eliminates the 4-6x PPC and 4x LRM-??/SRM-6 boating, but still allows heavy firepower in all areas.

[Torquemada]

@ Joker Two

I think that mechanism would be too simplistic. By giving much finer control, as was the intention of my idea, it means that each mech can be very easily tweaked as needed to balance load out issues. Also for some future weapons, like the TomTom or the PPC+Capacitors or Heavy Gauss, these are huge weapons, that in canon, only a very few select mechs could use. If a system is in place which allows easy refinement of existing mech load out options then it becomes much simpler to add new weapons like these into the game. If the system is simply a small or large hardpoint then that will lead to future issues where suddenly a wide range of Mech chassis' can equip very large weapons that should actually be quite chassis specific.

[Ialdabaoth]

Joker Two, on 06 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

One serious issue is how to implement hardpoint restrictions without changing the core construction rules, and thus invalidating existing stock variants.

I recommend doing so as follows:

All existing and future weapons would be placed into Small and Large categories:

Small: SLAS, MLAS, FLAMER, TAG, MGUN, AC/2, AC/5, SRM-2, SRM-4, LRM-5, NARC, and variants of the above (i.e. Pulse, Ultra, Streak, and future ER and LB-X variants).

Large: LLAS, PPC, AC/10, AC/20, GAUSS, SRM-6, LRM-10, LRM-15, LRM-20, and variants of the above (i.e. Pulse, ER, LB-X, and future Streak and Ultra variants).

Large weapons would then require Large hardpoint slots of the relevant weapon type, while Small weapons could be placed in Small or Large hardpoint slots. To apply this to chassis, any hardpoint that holds a Large weapon in that chassis's stock configuration becomes a Large hardpoint, and all other hardpoints become Small.

Example situations (using the most commonly decried "boats", "cheese builds", etc):

CPLT-K2: 2 Large Energy (each Arm), 2 Small Energy and 2 Small Ballistic (each side Torso). This fixes the -K2's primary role as an energy combatant, while still allowing players to use small-caliber ACs to field sustained-fire ballistic builds.

CPLT-A1: 4 Large Missile (2 each Arm). This cuts down on the problem of SSRM or SRM boats by decreasing the number of launchers, but preserves the LRM volley potential, and still allows people to field heavy SRM armaments without becoming excessive.

STK-??: 2 Large Energy, 2 Large Missile, the rest Small. Eliminates the 4-6x PPC and 4x LRM-??/SRM-6 boating, but still allows heavy firepower in all areas.

You forgot the most egregious of all: A Raven with an AC/20 in its arm. But yes, this would solve all the current absurdities.


Another option might be to simply designate weapon restrictions per internal slot, so a Catapult-K2 would have 3 energy slots per arm (letting you mount one PPC, one LL + one ML, or three ML per arm), but your system would probably be quicker to implement.

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 06 March 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[Doxylicious]

You sir are one of those guys that dont like fun. i DONT like your suggestion, it removes the fun off a game

[IRONxPagan]

Another option that could work with the current system would be adding some sort of recoil system. Give each weapon a set recoil which requires a set amount of mech tonage to mount and use. Example being an AC2 requires 10 tons to use, so 3 AC2 would require a mech that ways 30 tons, or an AC20 requires 40 tons to use so you would need a mech that weighs 40 tons to use it.

[Weatherman]

To the people complaining that limiting what can be placed in a hardpoint removes the "fun" from the game, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I remember playing TT. I remember supper cheese builds that weren't anything close to canon. I remember that playing with the various stock mechs and their variants made for a much more interesting game that had a more story like feel to it. PGI talked about wanting to make MWO a mix of FPS and Sim as well as telling a story. I am seeing to many changes favoring FPS over SIm and story, and it concerns me. The idea of taking mechs straight from the BT universe, customizing them a bit (I am fine with not being allowed to simply scratch build a mech), and playing in a persistent universe that had the various conflicts that BT is known for was enough to get me to support this game.

Until community warfare is implemented I will have to simply wait and hope for the latter. For the former though, I absolutely believe that the Devs need to seriously consider adjusting the hardpoint system in a manner that preserves the fantasy of BT while still being fun for all players.

I think the MW4 format is very close to what needs to be changed. I don't care how many people try to sell me on Gauss Cats and Gauss Ravens, I dislike the fact that someone so drastically alter the design of a mech in such a way that it ignores the very concept of hardpoints. Adopting the MW4 hardpoint slot system allows us to customize our mechs in a reasonable manner while restraining some of the more ridiculous builds.

To answer some of the arguments made against the MW4 style hardpoint limits:

@Renthrak - I don't understand how you can look at the MW4 system and find it simplistic. The design may be simple, yes, but the customizing of a mech requires some serious thought. I also believe that the MW4 slot system can absolutely be combined with the critical slot system already in use (and so well known to those of us from back in the day).

@Adrienne Vorton - How is it you see this as limiting a mech to downgrading only? If I strip the small lasers off a mech and replace them with medium lasers, that works perfectly fine in the MW4 system. If I strip out an AC/20 from my Atlas and replace it with two Ultra AC/5s, how does this not work in the MW4 System. I am confident that if the Devs put their effort into adopting the MW4 system they could absolutely find a good balance of slots with hardpoints based on the original weapon and the size of the mech. Yes, that means smaller mechs cannot mount Gauss Rifles and such, but let me remind you that the Hollander, a 35 ton light mech, was specifically designed around the Gauss Rifle because the thing is too massive for a light mech. Look at the Hunchback with that giant cannon on its shoulder. That is there because an AC/20 is massive.

All the MW4 system does is place realistic limitations on what can be placed on a hardpoint, based on the size of a mech and the original weapons load out. I believe a lot of people agree with me, even old school TT players who understand how out of hand customizing can get when you don't have enough limitations. Until we change this system we will absolutely see players spamming the flavor of the week and making ridiculous alterations to mechs that aren't close to the semi-realism that the game is supposed to embrace.

Edited by Weatherman, 06 March 2013 - 10:18 PM.