32 replies to this topic

[Ialdabaoth]

So, pulling from several different threads on restricting weapon hardpoints based on size, I'd like to consolidate several ideas that have got positive feedback into a single suggestion:

Step 1: Hardpoint Size

All hardpoints should have a critical slot restriction, to prevent things like putting an AC20 into a Machinegun slot. Current chassis should have their hard points adjusted based on their default configuration:

Energy hardpoints should be either 1 slot (for Flamers, Small Lasers, or Medium Lasers), 2 slots (for Large Lasers), or 3 slots (for PPCs).

Ballistic hardpoints should either be 2 slot (for Machineguns and Autocannon/2), 5 slots (for Autocannon/5), 8 slots (for Autocannon/10), or 11 slots (for Autocannon/20 and Gauss Rifles).

Missile hardpoints should either be 1 slot (for SRM2, SRM4, or LRM5), 3 slots (for SRM6 or LRM10), 5 slots (for LRM15), or 7 slots (for LRM20).


Step 2: Efficiencies

Three new efficiencies should be created:

Beam Warrior - Each of this chassis' Energy hardpoints gain +1 slot size. Full unlock: Each of this chassis' Energy hardpoints gain an additional +1 slot size.

Big Guns - Each of this chassis' Ballistic hardpoints gain +3 slot size. Full unlock: Each of this chassis' Ballistic hardpoints gain an additional +3 slot size.

Missile Massacre - Each of this chassis' Missile hardpoints gain +2 slot size. Full unlock: Each of this chassis' Missile hardpoints gains an additional +2 slot size.



So, what does this mean?

Let's say you start with an AS7D Atlas. It has two Energy-1 hard points, one Missile-7 hardpoint, one Missile-3 hardpoint, one Ballistic-11 hardpoint, and one Ballistic-5 hardpoint.

Starting out, you can upgrade the two Medium Lasers to Medium Pulse lasers, but not to Large Lasers. You can replace the AC20 with a Gauss Rifle, two Ultra AC/5's, or an Ultra AC/5 and an LB/10X, but not two LB/10X's. You can replace the SRM6 with an Artemis SRM6 or an LRM15, but not an LRM20 or an Artemis LRM15. You can replace the LRM20 with any missile weapon you want, up to an Artemis LRM20.

If you grind for awhile, you can unlock Beam Warrior for this chassis, which lets you swap the Medium Lasers for Large Lasers or even Large Pulse Lasers, but not PPCs. You could also unlock Missile Massacre, which would let you swap the SRM6 for an LRM20 or an Artemis LRM15, but not an Artemis LRM20. And you could unlock Big Guns, which lets you replace the AC20 with two LB10X.

So ultimately, no flexibility is lost - every design that's currently in the game can still be made. It just means that some of them require Efficiencies to unlock.

For the developers, it just means adding an extra numeric value to each hardpoint, and then coding three new Efficiencies that affect that number.

Reasonably simple, reasonably intuitive, and solves most of people's hardpoint complaints without outright preventing any of the more creative builds.

What do you think, Sirs?

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 19 March 2013 - 12:36 PM.

[Ialdabaoth]

Note that the system, as presented, still allows a lot of configuration out-of-the-box. Energy weapons can switch between Pulse, ER and Standard; Ballistic weapons can switch between Ultra, LBX, Gauss and Standard; Missile weapons can switch between LRMs, SRMs and SSRMs, and anything bigger than a 1-slot can upgrade to Artemis without difficulty.

Each time you unlock an Efficiency, you get to put the next bigger set of guns on your 'mech. Once you unlock all possible Efficiencies, virtually any design is possible. Here's the only things you can't achieve:

-Putting an AC20 into a slot that originally housed a Machinegun or Autocannon/2
-Putting an LRM20 with Artemis into a slot that originally housed an SRM2, SRM4 or LRM5

Every other rebuild is possible.

[Terror Teddy]

So light ballistic mechs will be literally ****** until they make MG's viable?

Instead of the "size" issue for mounts I'd rather see:

-Mounts
-Maximum Allowed Criticals For Weapon Type

So, a mech with 3 ballistic slots in Left Arm with 6 ballistic Criticals could mount 3 ballistics or LESS with no more than 6 TOTAL used Criticals.

Keeps flexibility but keeps extremity out.

This could change the HBK-4G compared to the 4H where we could allow the 4H with 4 ballistic slots but 2 less allowed criticals. This would make the 4G the only one able to mount the AC/20 (10c) while the 4H would be able to use more lighter ballistics to a total of 8 used criticals.

[Ialdabaoth]

Terror Teddy, on 19 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

So light ballistic mechs will be literally ****** until they make MG's viable?

Instead of the "size" issue for mounts I'd rather see:

-Mounts
-Maximum Allowed Criticals For Weapon Type

So, a mech with 3 ballistic slots in Left Arm with 6 ballistic Criticals could mount 3 ballistics or LESS with no more than 6 TOTAL used Criticals.

Keeps flexibility but keeps extremity out.

This could change the HBK-4G compared to the 4H where we could allow the 4H with 4 ballistic slots but 2 less allowed criticals. This would make the 4G the only one able to mount the AC/20 (10c) while the 4H would be able to use more lighter ballistics to a total of 8 used criticals.

Fixing ballistic weapons needs to happen, but is an entirely separate issue.

Since we've already deviated from cannon Battletech, I'd rather see (assuming my OP idea is implemented):

- Machineguns increased from 0.04 damage per hit, to 0.1 damage per hit (1.0DPS)

- AC20 reduced from 10 crits to 9, so it can fit on 'mechs with XL engines or ballistic arms.

[Targetloc]

The reason I strongly dislike these ideas is that it only allows downgrading of weapons.


You would no longer be able to dump or downsize a missile rack to upgrade a Large Laser to a PPC... or even a Medium Laser to a Large Laser.

Your only customization choices would be remove some of the stock weapons for more engine or armor, or boating a larger number of smaller weapons.

[Ialdabaoth]

Targetloc, on 19 March 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

The reason I strongly dislike these ideas is that it only allows downgrading of weapons.


You would no longer be able to dump or downsize a missile rack to upgrade a Large Laser to a PPC... or even a Medium Laser to a Large Laser.

Your only customization choices would be remove some of the stock weapons for more engine or armor, or boating a larger number of smaller weapons.

... or unlocking the appropriate Efficiency.

Additionally, the following upgrades are still possible without any Efficiencies whatsoever:


Flamer -> Small Pulse Laser
Flamer -> Medium Laser
Flamer -> Medium Pulse Laser

Small Laser -> Small Pulse Laser
Small Laser -> Medium Laser

Small Laser -> Medium Pulse Laser

Medium Laser -> Medium Pulse Laser

Large Laser -> ER Large Laser
Large Laser -> Large Pulse Laser

Machine Gun -> AC/2
AC/5 -> UAC/5
AC/10 -> Gauss Rifle

SRM2 -> SSRM2
SRM2 -> SRM4
SRM2 -> LRM5

LRM10 -> LRM15
LRM15 -> LRM20

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 19 March 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Just go all the way. Assign a hard point a critical slot size. This would be bigger than the stock weapon most times and tuned per chassis/variant.

[WardenWolf]

I think it is too far into the game now for a change this massive, but if I could go back I would do a very simple, 2-size hardpoint system for each weapon type. Not too much more confusing that the system now, but it would force more differences between what the mechs and even variants of mechs would be capable of. I've written on it before, if anyone cares to look it up.

The OP's idea is decent, but I think the unlockable thing could be a bit overpowered if you were trying to use this for better variant balance. I also think a 3-size system is more complex than necessary, but it would be interesting at least.

[Cyke]

Overall I'd put my support behind the suggestion for the hardpoint size limits, but not the Efficiencies idea.
I don't think 'Mech configuration should in any way be affected by Efficiencies; in my opinion Efficiencies portray a MechWarrior's skill at piloting a 'Mech, but should not affect the construction and customization of a 'Mech.

For the general hardpoint size idea, in my opinion the advantages of such a system are:
- Increasing the depth of the 'Mech construction and customization system by adding a further dimension of valuation for different hardpoints.
- Reducing the prevalence of the (commonly perceived as negative) phenomenon of "boating".

I'd say that the first point is the primary benefit, providing the devs with an added adjustable value for further differentiating different chassis, and the different hardpoints located on each chassis

While only a secondary benefit, the second point (reducing "boating" configurations) arguably has merits in positively altering the metagame.
For example, the 36 SRM "Splatcat" could be limited to a "mere" 32 or 28 SRMs per Alpha salvo, or the 6-PPC Stalker could be limited to "just" 4 PPCs and 2 lasers, and so forth.


Allowing multiple small weapons to be mounted in a single big hardpoint is something I'm mostly opposed to, although it merits further discussion. For example, machine guns might be more viable if you could mount two (or more) machine guns in a single hardpoint, in place of an AC10 or AC20.
However, there are too many 1-slot weapons that are already efficient enough, that they'd become too effective if allowed the same concessions (medium lasers are a good example).

Mostly unrelated, I'd like to point out that there's a few hardpoints that are already indirectly limited, namely, those located on the head or center torso locations. The AWS-9M's center torso is a particularly egregious example..

Edited by Cyke, 19 March 2013 - 06:17 PM.

[Sybreed]

agreed with everything except the effiency part... I'd say just no to that.

And unfortunately, we're in too deep to make such massive changes to the game right now... which will probably be the main thing that will annoy me enough to quit the game eventually.

I just wish PGI did the right thing from the start... now we're stuck with min/maxers and boaters... sigh...

[Cyke]

Sybreed, on 19 March 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

And unfortunately, we're in too deep to make such massive changes to the game right now... which will probably be the main thing that will annoy me enough to quit the game eventually.

I just wish PGI did the right thing from the start... now we're stuck with min/maxers and boaters... sigh...

You do make a very good point.
Changes will potentially annoy a lot of people who have invested C-Bills, MC, time and effort to gain experience (both real player experience and XP) into a particular build.


However, all changes to the game have equal potential to do that, even the common and needed frequent of re-balancing weapons and equipment. For example, I'll bet there's not a few people out there whose 'Mech bays consist entirely of ECM-equipped 'Mechs who are going to feel very strongly about an ECM nerf, regardless of the benefits to the game as a whole.


Hardpoint sizes will be a great balancing tool for Piranha that will give them additional power to tune the meta, and it can be implemented in stages, but from what you mention, I garner this: they'd need to start at least a partial implementation (on certain chassis/variants) as early as possible to allow players time to familiarize themselves with the game mechanic.

[kiltymonroe]

This basically enables you to downgrade your weapons to things that are worse than the stock builds, but not go in the other direction without grinding to pay a newbie tax. Bad idea.

[Tombstoner]

Except for the hard point restrictions the entire system governing what can be mounted is almost strait from TT. Other wise the mech bay turns all mechs into true omni mechs. The systems as it stands is borked, because the TT system assumes that mechs have the same volumes per location regardless if its 100 vs. 20 tone. TT rules doesn't have mech size for targeting modifiers.

The volume of a commando LT or arm is the same as the atlas. One question is why? a second is are the models scaled correctly. Does the atlas model have 5 times the volume of the commando. This is very important for targeting. As it stands the atlas is extremity easy to hit. i think its because its excessively large relative to other mechs, an arbitrary choice. Thus the atlas survivability is being harmed and not compensated for its larger volume.

As for the OP points. i would add that each HP location be assigned a given amount of volume depending on the volume of the mech model. why i can't mount multiple medium laser on an atlas arm that used to hold a ppc or mount 2 x ac-20's in my torso that has 2 ballistic hard points, its a 100 tone mech, but a 65 tone catapult can, only because they are in separate locations. locations that used to hold MG's. yea the systems borked.

MWO has the opportunity to reboot the game, as it stands its square pegging the round hole.
it needs a complete rework of most game mechanics before it too late.

Edited by Tombstoner, 20 March 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[focuspark]

Would rather that hard points just contained a list of weapons they accepted.

Example:

CTF-1X
LA: { ML, MPL, LL, LPL }
LT: { SL, SPL, ML, MPL, LL, LPL }
RT:{ SL, SPL, ML, MPL, LL, LPL }, { AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10 }
RA: { ML, MPL, LL, LPL }, { LL, LPL, PPC, ER-PPC, AC/5, UAC/5 }

[Imagine Dragons]

focuspark, on 20 March 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Would rather that hard points just contained a list of weapons they accepted.

Example:

CTF-1X
LA: { ML, MPL, LL, LPL }
LT: { SL, SPL, ML, MPL, LL, LPL }
RT:{ SL, SPL, ML, MPL, LL, LPL }, { AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10 }
RA: { ML, MPL, LL, LPL }, { LL, LPL, PPC, ER-PPC, AC/5, UAC/5 }

While support the sized hardpoint system... this makes an interesting alternative considering there will not be a billion different weapons...

[focuspark]

XenomorphZZ, on 21 March 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

While support the sized hardpoint system... this makes an interesting alternative considering there will not be a billion different weapons...

Exactly. It would give the devs of upper and lower bounds for each weapon hard point. Additionally, it would stop forcing people to think in energy, ballistic, and missile only but to what's possible on each given chassis.

[Dimitry Matveyev]

Some thoughts about a hardpoint system.
The hardpoint size system from MW4 was good, but it didn't consider the number of misile tubes and the number of hardpoints. Below is what I think should work just fine.




As you can see Cat A1 has 2 big missile racks with 15 misile tubes, each can hold up to 3 different misile launchers. Depending on it's size a launcher takes from 1 (LRM5) to 4 (LRM20) slots in the missile rack. A1 Cat has big missile rack with 3 slots (not 3 missile hardpoints!) so the biggest launcher it can store - LRM15 (15 tubes allow that). But it CAN'T store a LRM20, because it needs bigger missile rack with 4 slots (like in the Cat C4) and 20 tubes. A1 has 3 hardpoints in each rack, so it can mount a variety of launchers in each rack, but not more than 3 (harpoint limitation), taking no more than 3 slots (missile rack size limitation - 3 slots) and having no more than 15 rockets in a rack (the number of tubes limitation - 15).
On the Cat C1 there also are 2 big missile racks with 3 slots and 15 tubes each, but with only 1 hardpoint. So you can mount only 1 missile launcher in each missile rack. And it can't take more than 3 slots and have more than 15 tubes.
Cat C4 has bigger missile racks with 4 slots, 20 tubes and 2 hardpoints each, so it can mount max. 2 missile launchers in each rack, but launchers can't take more than 4 slots per rack and 20 tubes per rack.

More examples, to make it more clear:

Ravens has 1 medium (2 slots) missile hardpoint in RT with 6 tubes. It can mount only 1 launcher (hardpoint limit), it can be small (1 slot) or medium (2 slots) with max. 6 tubes. For example - LRM 5 is OK (1 hardpoint - ok, 1 slot - ok, 5 tubes - ok), LRM10 - NOT OK (1 hardpoint - ok, 2 slots - ok, 10 tubes - fail).

Dragon 1N - has medium (2 slots) missile rack in CT with 2 hardpoints and 10 tubes. It can mount max. 2 launchers (hp limit), which takes 2 or less slots and having 10 or less tubes. Examples - LRM5 and SRM4 - OK (2 hp - ok, 2 slots - ok, 9 tubes - ok), LRM10 - OK (1 hp - ok, 2 slots - ok, 10 tubes - ok), SRM6 and SRM4 - NOT OK (2 hp - ok, 3 slots - fail, 10 tubes - ok).

The other weapons can be treated the same way.
For example - energy.
Flamer - 1 (or two? never used them )
Small laser/ Small pulse laser - 1 slot
Medium laser/ Medium pulse laser - 1 slot
Large laser/ ER Large laser/ Large pulse laser - 2 slots
PPC/ ER PPC - 3 slots

Give 3 slots energy hardpoins to those mechs, which were designed to have PPCs, other can use variety of lasers.

I will not write balistics, at this point (I hope! ) you should understand the idea.
What this or similar system would give? Balanced system, where LRM-SRM-PPC and other OP boats can't be made due to hardpoint size or missile tubes number limitation, will make different chasises and variants more unique. But after that the damage of different weapons can be tweaked, to make even small rocket launchers and MG more usable.

P.S. I'm sorry for mistakes, english is not my mother-language.

[Xerxys]

I've seen many times throughout this whole post that "this would force". Who the hell do you think you are to force anybody to do anything? I'm not big on the cheese builds anymore than anyone else is, but every build has it's weaknesses. Instead of trying to force people to play the game the way you want them to play it, you should use your intellect to find the weakness to their builds. I absolutely love those splat cat builds. Being a scout pilot mostly, I just keep them out of range and hit them with lasers. From time to time I pop within missile range and let loose a salvo and then dance back out.

Simple truth is that regardless what you do people are going to find ways to abuse the system. It's how these cheese builds even get started. You may limit what can be created, but you're still going to find people running almost identical loadouts because it's simply more powerful than any other possibilities.

Stop trying to force people to do what you're wanting them to do. This game left canon early on in closed beta. Cheese builds were being made even then. You're never going to find a totally balanced game. It's not going to happen because as most games are created they're a rock, paper, scissors setup. You may be able to blast my scout away in your medium and possibly even in your heavy mech, but I'm going to frustrate and most likely down your assault and at the very least do heavy damage to your scouts.

I do understand what you're attempting here, but too many people are going to ***** and complain about it, especially those people that run the cheese builds.

[Dimitry Matveyev]

Xerxys, on 22 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

I've seen many times throughout this whole post that "this would force". Who the hell do you think you are to force anybody to do anything? I'm not big on the cheese builds anymore than anyone else is, but every build has it's weaknesses. Instead of trying to force people to play the game the way you want them to play it, you should use your intellect to find the weakness to their builds. I absolutely love those splat cat builds. Being a scout pilot mostly, I just keep them out of range and hit them with lasers. From time to time I pop within missile range and let loose a salvo and then dance back out....

This is a "Support and feedback" tread. And above is my personal feedback. I'm not "forcing" anyone, it's my (and not only my) opinion. You can agree or disagree.
I don't have problems with boats myselve and never had. I run Cats mostly and I don't make cheesy builds, it's not interesting for me (and not only me). I want more options and more versatility. Oh, yeah, and since MWO is positioned as a "giant robot simulator" I want more logic. How a huge Particle Canon can be mounted on a hardpoint, designed for a small laser? How a 200mm ballistic canon can be mounted on a hardpoint, designed for MG? How 20 rockets can be fired from a 10 tube launcer without reloading?

Edited by Dimitry Matveyev, 23 March 2013 - 05:23 AM.

[Chino]

This idea and concept of hardpoint size should be introduced before game was ever launched