32 replies to this topic

[MasterErrant]

you know the only system that I have seen that makes sense is the one from MW$ in example a Catapults arms have a group of seven slots that can only hold missiles that's ont lrm 20 with artemis.then the r,L and Center torsos would each have a 2 slot energy groups. that allows you to buils and classic useable catapult.

Lets remember again that many of the Cannon variants were color text added to the TRO's and most of them are unworkable which is why they are only mentioned in passing.

[Xerxys]

Dimitry Matveyev, on 23 March 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

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?

Try thinking of it more as the wiring harness and everything is there that are specifically designed to operate energy weapons vs. missiles vs. ballistic. If you don't try to over think this, then you will have your logical setup. The wiring is there and it depends on how much space is available as to what specific weapons you can mount there.

[Haitchpeasauce]

I've toyed with the idea of hardpoint size restrictions as well. The main point is to try to prevent mounting of weapons that are much bigger than the stock design, or boating something like five LRM20s. I support this idea.

But in the most recent patch, the Catapult K2's model was updated so that a larger weapon cap was shown if Gauss Rifles or AC/20 were mounted.

Ergo, PGI support the mounting of large ballistics on the K2.

Edited by Haitchpeasauce, 24 March 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Dimitry Matveyev, on 22 March 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

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.

This is so nice. And very obviously awesome.

I'd love to see this kind of system here, however with recent developments I feel it is less needed.

repairing SHS, DHS & the heatscale to curb boating and massive alpha strikes negating the entire point of double armour would be preferable.

[Cyke]

Haitchpeasauce, on 24 March 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

I've toyed with the idea of hardpoint size restrictions as well. The main point is to try to prevent mounting of weapons that are much bigger than the stock design, or boating something like five LRM20s. I support this idea.

But in the most recent patch, the Catapult K2's model was updated so that a larger weapon cap was shown if Gauss Rifles or AC/20 were mounted.

Ergo, PGI support the mounting of large ballistics on the K2.

That's fine.
Just pointing out, it doesn't contradict the suggestion in any way.


Even if PGI implements hardpoint sizing, they can restrict (or not restrict) hardpoints as they see fit. So yeah, they can still, for example, leave the K2's ballistic mounts unrestricted. The suggestion just gives them the option of exercising control where they feel it's needed, likely fine-tuning things occasionally during patch versions.

Now, I'm not sure whether 36 SRM "Splatcats" are considered okay by the devs.. but if it was something they feel needs balancing, then for example, they can restrict two hardpoints on each side (so they'd only accept SRM4s instead of SRM6). Thus, they'd be limited to 28 SRMs instead of 36 SRMs, which is hardly major, but should make Splatcats all right.
That'll be a better move than weakening the SRMs themselves, which would affect all builds that include even a single SRM pack.
Again, the specific hardpoints on the specific variants to restrict is completely up to them.
In essence, it's another tool for PGI to use to control their game design, rather than something for us to use.


As an aside, I personally feel ballistic K2s are not an issue at all, and the new visual update is a bloody awesome touch. I'd like to see more chassis/variants that have their external appearance altered based on the weapons they mount.

Edited by Cyke, 25 March 2013 - 01:29 AM.

[Wildweasel1]

Personally I don't have a problem with any builds in the game. I don't run the cheesy ones myself because I find they are too one dimensional. I like to create my own builds and have not used any that anyone has designed, each build I do is unique and has to be played differently. This is the best part of the game as far as I am concerned and if I had to run stock builds or limited mods I would probably just stick to one class until I became totally bored with the game and quit. The biggest detriment to any build is team work and pilot skill, sure an ac40 JM can rack up a few lucky kills but if someone on your team tags him a LRM boat can make short work of him with 720m of safety. Though I would like to see ECM's weigh more take up more slots and be available for all mech variants.

[MasterErrant]

yet again the only thing thay need to do is use the MW4 pattern. anything else will just mean more reason to boat and less reason to build and play balanced.

[Deamonition]

This is the way the game should be. The argument that this is a bad idea because cheese builders will complain is the funniest ever. Cheese builds shouldn't have been made possible in the first place so let them complain.

I totally agree with this post. Being able to put guns or missiles on hard points that are physically too small (if you look at the actual mech) is illogical.

Arguably good/bad comparison : You can try bolting a V12 in a Ford Fiesta, but that won't work (or at least without major changes to the frame). You would need another frame/car/variant to fit that big of an engine.

[Darling_In_The_MeXX]

Why was MW2 the best game in the world? It allowed complete and absolute customization. Why was MW4 slightly dissapointing, very restrictive hardpoints. I think that the Devs have crated the perfect hybridization that works for this game. And technically, since there were variants of mechs, these so called small laser hardpoints can be changed or replaced with a large pulse laser hardpoint. I personally fell in love with this game when I was 15 because I realized how much the MW4 game restricted creativity compared to MW2 when I played. I must say that this game has a near perfect balance. Referring to Battletech, I love that game so much because of the variants and the personal customization that goes into making a mech that you use to parade the battlefield destroying all the things.

Please see that every mech has its strengths and weaknesses and the Devs implemented it well.

Edited by Oblivion5000, 04 April 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[Dimitry Matveyev]

Oblivion5000, on 04 April 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Why was MW2 the best game in the world? It allowed complete and absolute customization.

I like customization too, but I also would like to see more logic. If AC-20 can be mounted in light Ravens hand, so why it can't be mounted in heavy Cataphracts hand (not enough crit slots in 4x lol)? So much customization!

[ArmageddonKnight]

I've posted about hardpoint limits a few times.

I cant be asked to get into specific details becouse lets face it ..its never going to be implimtented..but.

The point of hardpoint limits is to prevent silly setups where the physical size of weapons would not work on the mech in questions. Like pritty much any Large weapon class on a Light mech. Currently we have light mechs running around with large weapons or a bucket load of medium sized weapons, which should be physicaly impossible..Unfortunatly the current hardpoint system allows this and as such is the reason we have fast light mechs running around taking out assualt mechs.
The idea behind a heavy or assualt mech is to be heavy armoed slow and have the biggest weapons , there really is no point to them if u can have the same weapons on a faster more agile mech that can constantly stay in a heavier mechs deadzone.

The reason i say this kind of idea will never be implemented is becouse a hardpoint limits would restrict light mechs to small weapons and balance things out BUT would result in the use of light mechs falling substantialy as many players simply cant be asked to deal with any form of 'challenge' and would rather face roll things with OP builds.
The recent LRM nerf showed just that ..the number of LRM's boats is substantialy less..u still have a few kicking about and those r the players who genuinely like that type of gameplay..hence why they r still boating...the rest were playing LRM boats prior to the patch simply due to how OP they were.

Anyway the point is ..hardpoint limits for equipment sizes (small medium large) is a great idea, but simply wont be implimented.

[Deamonition]

Oblivion5000, on 04 April 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Why was MW2 the best game in the world? It allowed complete and absolute customization. Why was MW4 slightly dissapointing, very restrictive hardpoints. I think that the Devs have crated the perfect hybridization that works for this game. And technically, since there were variants of mechs, these so called small laser hardpoints can be changed or replaced with a large pulse laser hardpoint. I personally fell in love with this game when I was 15 because I realized how much the MW4 game restricted creativity compared to MW2 when I played. I must say that this game has a near perfect balance. Referring to Battletech, I love that game so much because of the variants and the personal customization that goes into making a mech that you use to parade the battlefield destroying all the things.

Please see that every mech has its strengths and weaknesses and the Devs implemented it well.

Your argument is purely based on your opinion. I found MW4 awesome. And customization was fine

[Tombstoner]

i found single player awesome and multi player seriously f'd up.

The entire game needed to be build around the ability to control targeting like it is now.
the atlas should get a benefit from be so easy to hit and a commando a penalty from being so small. as it is thahy both ahve the same internal space for weapons.... this is just broken. PGI doesn't care what we think individually.
it will how ever react to outrage en mass.

The game balance forum is a joke.