101 replies to this topic

[Airwind]

brilliant idea love it.

to add to that.. there should also be clan tech energy points level1 level2 etc.

for inner spere mechs to equip clan techs then they need to purchase modules which upgrades their hardpoint to the clan equivalent hard points. o_O

e.g. Energy Hardpoint lvl 1 + Clan Energy Hardpoint Compatibility Module = Clan/IS Energy Hardpoint lvl 1

[Jonathan Paine]

I really like the idea of somewhat limiting what kind of weapons you can put on a mech. Mechs like the hunch G might make a comeback if we limit access to ac 20s. Awesomes might be more popular. Boating would be harder.

[Brilig]

I don't like the idea of limiting customization. I think it would be better to fix weapons all being able to pinpoint the same spot.

[Iron Hyena]

Anything that gimps customization is **** in my book.

I vote no.

[Alexandrix]

Myself and many others have been bringing up the hard point size limitation idea since closed beta.Sadly it doesn't translate into an immediate cash grab for PGI so it's went wholly ignored,game balance/quality be damned.As it stands,this is just alpha warrior online.Which is why I said the hell with it and uninstalled two weeks ago.My money has since went to other entertainment options because It's god damned boring to see nothing but 1 button alpha warriors every single match.

Edited by Alexandrix, 02 April 2013 - 01:00 AM.

[Mahws]

People have been suggesting this for a long, long time. Personally I'd rather a system half way between MWO/MW4. "You can have two laser weapons in this component, so long as they fit in four slots." sort of deal.

With the current system there really isn't enough customization. With only 3 types of hard points we've pretty much hit the limit of builds being meaningfully different to each other already. The only reason to get new mechs will be aesthetic and that's not really viable in the long run.

[GalaxyBluestar]

verybad, on 01 April 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Just combine MW4's sized hardpoints with Battletech and previous Mechwarrior's critical space.

EG An Awesome might have muliple size 3 energy Hardpoints while a Stalker would have several size 2 energy hardpoints and lots of size 1 energy hardpoints.

i'd go with this, match the hard point size capacity with the mech graphic. ie the barrels of an awesome 8q-9m would be 5 slots for 3 hardpoints, 1erppc with 1 er lrg laser is the limit or you could have 2 lrg lasers and a medium or 3 mediums.

catapults and stalkers would benifit from this system to control the amount of missle combos you'd have and especially make sense of the balistic slots on a catapult and the energy slots on a stalker.

however it's been discussed on the forums several times so i doubt we'll see any changes.

Alexandrix, on 02 April 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Myself and many others have been bringing up the hard point size limitation idea since closed beta.Sadly it doesn't translate into an immediate cash grab for PGI so it's went wholly ignored,game balance/quality be damned.As it stands,this is just alpha warrior online.Which is why I said the hell with it and uninstalled two weeks ago.My money has since went to other entertainment options because It's god damned boring to see nothing but 1 button alpha warriors every single match.

why is it that only after optimisation and staterewind that all these alpha haters have come along? because alphas are more effective in the build made expressly for that tactic? it's always been apart of mech warrior, 4 autocannon Annihilators, 3 ppc awesomes, nova and supernovas etc etc. the list of purpose made alpha strikers go on and on. so you're going to have to live with it.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 02 April 2013 - 03:08 AM.

[Darius Deadeye]

Mahws, on 02 April 2013 - 01:31 AM, said:

People have been suggesting this for a long, long time. Personally I'd rather a system half way between MWO/MW4. "You can have two laser weapons in this component, so long as they fit in four slots." sort of deal.

With the current system there really isn't enough customization. With only 3 types of hard points we've pretty much hit the limit of builds being meaningfully different to each other already. The only reason to get new mechs will be aesthetic and that's not really viable in the long run.

Nailed it. Current system makes people think they have "ultimate customization freedom", when in fact, it encourages the opposite.

Any and all of the suggestions put forward in this thread promote variation, customization through greater spread in weaponry, chassis variety and less of the one-weapon to rule them all type of builds.

In the spirit of examples: how many would currently use the small laser? Very few, yes? Because you would be crippled if you decided to use it. However, if hardpoint limitations forced everyone to use a small weapon in that one hardpoint, we'd see a lot of red beams, flamers, mg's on the battlefield. And who knows, because you could no longer alpha 60+ damage in someones face, we might get matches lasting longer than 3-4 minutes each.

Edited by Darius Deadeye, 02 April 2013 - 03:44 AM.

[PurpleNinja]

Maybe they can remove custom builds at all, then everybody will need to play with stock variants.

[Darius Deadeye]

GalaxyBluestar, on 02 April 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

why is it that only after optimisation and staterewind that all these alpha haters have come along? because alphas are more effective in the build made expressly for that tactic? it's always been apart of mech warrior, 4 autocannon Annihilators, 3 ppc awesomes, nova and supernovas etc etc. the list of purpose made alpha strikers go on and on. so you're going to have to live with it.

This isn't alpha hating. The 3 PPC Awesome was built and centered around the ability to field 3 PPC's.

The 4 autocannon annihilator built and centered around the ability to field 4 autocannons. It was what made those chassis unique and interesting.

The ability to alpha strike is fine. The ability to boat is fine.

The ability to excessively, unrealistically boat something that was likely never contemplated in design phase is not.

It defeats the purpose of hardpoints, chassis variety and having weapons of varying sizes.

Example, because we like those.

The 6x SRM-boater, can't remember which one that is (the A1?)

Imagine it had 2x t1, 4x t2 resulting in 2x srm6, 4x srm4. Still a viable boat, but it seems significantly less silly.

That would be the same as being able to field 2x LRM20/15 and 4x LRM5's.

It's a boat, but the "upper bracket of complete and utter stupidity in terms of realistic output" is disabled.

PurpleNinja, on 02 April 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

Maybe they can remove custom builds at all, then everybody will need to play with stock variants.

Meh. To reiterate; the point of this is to encourage further customization, but limiting the builds that simply breaks mimesis of MWO completely.

Edited by Darius Deadeye, 02 April 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Belorion]

This kind of thing would be brought up from time to time in closed beta... people would make polls convinced everyone would be all for the idea.

The thing is, most people prefer the system PGI has in place over some half cooked idea that ultimately only further limits what people can build.

People don't want to run stock only, they don't want some hard point system that is based on crit space size...

I have seen nothing in this thread that makes me think, hey that is a good idea. Its still the same argument that is unsupported by the majority of players.

Edited by Belorion, 02 April 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[NitroBurst]

I think this is a good idea to at least try out. I say this b/c ask yourselves this: what will be the difference between IS Mechs and Clan Mechs when they come out? Right now, I don't really see any. Maybe they are waiting for the Clan Mechs to roll out and see what happens, or maybe to change the IS Mechs then (idk). Thing is, as it stands, IS Mechs are almost Omnis in and of themselves because the only limitation they have is that they have weapon class specific hardpoints (but I can replace a Medium Laser for a PPC as long as I have the space...) It's as if they went half way to what they were supposed to do to fully simulate IS Mechs...but then stopped. If it stays like this, I really want to see what difference (and upsides) a Clan Mech will have aside from having true Omni hardpoints compared to the IS Mechs.

[TheJs]

The thing is even with this fancy new system or the MWO/MW4 hybrid system, people who only gravitate to own 'Optimum Mech' in the current system will still only go for the 'Optimum Mech' in the new systems because there will always be a mech with one level less or one hardpoint size less.

[Darius Deadeye]

TheJs, on 02 April 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

The thing is even with this fancy new system or the MWO/MW4 hybrid system, people who only gravitate to own 'Optimum Mech' in the current system will still only go for the 'Optimum Mech' in the new systems because there will always be a mech with one level less or one hardpoint size less.

You are right. Though I would rather see 100's of 4x ppc, 2x small pulse laser builds than 6ppc monsters.

Of course, talking about realism in a very non-realistic universe might be a slight oversight on my behalf.

Honest to God, I just want a more balanced/varied/interesting game with more longevity in the matches.

Total limitation is bad, but more so than not restriction is necessary.

For the very same reasons you can't dualwield say, rocket launchers, in bf3. Or sniper rifles in counter strike.

For the very same reasons your crotch region in fps games can't mount a magnum, unless it MAKES SENSE TO ALLOW IT.

[JohnathanSwift]

BladeSplint, on 01 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

This might sound good on paper but then you will have every variant directly shoehorned into its role

You mean Stalkers no longer being the best at PPC boating against an awesome?

K2's no longer being the best AC40?

Mechs that can carry more than one machine gun per ballistic slot?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

keith, on 01 April 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

by the time it is tested and put it, it will be 3-4 months. how about we go with MW3 style? this is an off shot to give the sim game balance.

MW3 builder would make this game skyrocket.

Any weapon any where?

AC20 stalkers here we come.



I'd also like to take note this has been discussed SINCE CLOSED BETA



And nothing has changed, we've just needed it more.

Mechs are turning into weapon hardpoint blobs, alot of mechs are having similar loadouts but are being chosen over the tradiational because of meta.

Edited by JohnathanSwift, 02 April 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

TheJs, on 02 April 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

The thing is even with this fancy new system or the MWO/MW4 hybrid system, people who only gravitate to own 'Optimum Mech' in the current system will still only go for the 'Optimum Mech' in the new systems because there will always be a mech with one level less or one hardpoint size less.

Having an optimum mech wil ALWAYS happen.

There is no way around that.

Stock or Full Omnimech. There will always be a "best" and the ubergamers will play it.

So that argument is stupid. Because you have it now. The only time it changes is when they nerf an item or add new items.

The people that prefer the current system are the people who enjoy alpha'ing with 1 or 2 weapon systems. So of course they like the current system. A lot of them have also tricked themselves into thinking that this hardpoint system promotes diversity...here is a tip it doesn't.

While the proposed system will still have a "best" mech. Instead of that mech having 6 of the same weapon. It will probably have a minimum of 3 and perhaps 4-5 weapon types.

[Boronho]

I also thin, that all chassis should have there right to exist and I like the idea of restriction for harpoints but I wouldn't call it "techlevel" because I think we dont need a new term. Maybe there could be another restriction for the hardpoint, weight for example.

To take the exmple witth the Catapult K2 on the one side and the Jagermech S on the other side. Then their could be an K2 with the following hardpoints: 2x ballistic (9t) and 4 Energy (10t).
The Jager-S could have: 4x ballistic (15t) and 4 Energy(2t)

So the K2 could carry max Ultra AC/5 but heavy laser and PPCs and the Jagermech S could carry the big ballistics uo to AC/20 or Gauss but only max medium pulse laser.

Of course you colud take critical slots instead of weight for a restriction.
But be careful to not dictate a mechs loadout by too much restrictions.

Edited by Boronho, 02 April 2013 - 04:55 AM.

[Odanan]

Though this system of "large" and "small" hardpoints is reasonable, I like the option of using a Large Laser, PPC or AC/10 in a light/medium mech. This system would make the lighter mechs more limited and predictable.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Odanan, on 02 April 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Though this system of "large" and "small" hardpoints is reasonable, I like the option of using a Large Laser, PPC or AC/10 in a light/medium mech. This system would make the lighter mechs more limited and predictable.

I do think light mechs would be hit the hardest with this concept. But to be honest...them's the breaks.

I still think light mechs are used WAY to freaking much in open face to face combat and winning. And while the large weapons aren't really part of the problem, I don't think it's a big deal to take them away as an option.

[Odanan]

I have a suggestion instead:

- first, "Large" hardpoints can mount "small" weapons.
- second, the "Large" or "Small" hardpoints are not necessarily based on the stock weapons, but in some planned design balancing.

So, the JagerMech could have 2 "Large" Ballistic, 4 "Small" Ballistic and 2 "Small" Energy hardpoints. The Catapult K2, in the other hand, would have 2 "Small" Ballistic hardpoints, 2 "Large" Energy and 2 "Small" hardpoints.
That way, variants would have more diversity but smaller mechs could have some their hardpoints as "Large" (to allow bigger weapons).