43 replies to this topic

[The Silent Protagonist]

OP, combine the light LRM and SRM hardpoints, and move LB-10x and AC10 to medium ballistic hardpoints and I'm with you.That was the best bit about mechwarrior 4, its hardpoint system in the mechlab. Stopped cheese (except for the machine gun annihilator, and other extremes) fairly effectively. When it comes to the A1 though, I'm thinking they should reimplement the hardpoints to be 2SRM/light LRM points, 4 large LRM points. Or maybe the other way around.
Oh, and smaller weapons should still be able to fit in larger ports (except SRMs)

[jay35]

More restrictions is the worst idea ever. You know what we need? A matchmaker that doesn't pit a 3L Raven and a Jenner against a lowly Spider 5V. Even if the Jenner was with the Spider, it'd still be almost impossible to take down a 3L with two non-ECM, non-Streak lights. How about we fix that first so we can actually have reasonably balanced drops?

Lt XKalibur, on 04 April 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

That was the best bit about mechwarrior 4, its hardpoint system in the mechlab. Stopped cheese (except for the machine gun annihilator, and other extremes) fairly effectively.

I don't know what MW4 you played, but the one I played had all sorts of min-max and boat builds. It was great, too. Everything could be countered, there was no Raven 3L ECM/Streaks equivalent that was simply OP compared to everything else. And that's what some apparently don't realize: It's not min-max or boat builds that ruin the game, because those will always be there no matter how many restrictions you put in place. Whatever is the most firepower you can get away with, within whatever restrictions are levied, is the new "max" build.
Until you shove everyone into generic stock builds, there will always be min-max and boating, and actually there's nothing wrong with that. It's the sign of diversity and freedom to experiment and be different and not all be forced into the same hollow, boring builds.

Edited by jay35, 04 April 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Cart]

As I said...there is always room for discussions...

[N0ni]

I would have to say "No" to this. Customization is the one thing going for this game, if limits are placed to hamper creativity and experimentation... the game just got less fun.

[KinLuu]

MWO need less restrictions, not more. I liked the classic TT rules - everything goes.

[Cart]

This limits would it make just a little more complex...but there's still room for creativity...
...and by the way...sticking a little bit to the BT-Universe would not be so bad IMO...

[Cart]

What I meant...

[KinLuu]

Cart, on 04 April 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

This limits would it make just a little more complex...but there's still room for creativity...
...and by the way...sticking a little bit to the BT-Universe would not be so bad IMO...

In TT there are no hardpoints at all. You can put whatever you want whereever you want.

[Schrottfrosch]

Some people converted the raven into a little Urbanmech - with your suggestion such interesting builds would become impossible.

Your argument originates in the mechwarrior lore - but if you are a hero of the inner sphere (or a disguised Clan-spy, not looking at anyone particular...), and you have some really good techs around you, you can easily convert stock IS-battlemechs into something different. Justin Allard for example converted a battered Centurion into his beloved Yen-Lo-Wang by replacing the stock AC/10 to an AC/20 - a conversion that would be impossible with your system.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Overall I think it is good as it is. I know it has led to some odd builds (K2 having dual gauss or dual AC20s where traditionally machine guns were installed), but this level of customization adds to the game more than detracts from it IMO.

As for Clan mechs, I always assumed Omni mechs main advantage (weapons wise) was that Omni slots allowed you to put ANY type of weapon in that slot as long as it fit. One Omni slot could be an energy weapon, ballistic, or missile. This is something we can not do in the Mechlab with the current setup, an energy hardpoint is an energy hardpoint, etc...

Overall, I think Clan mechs might be a bit more cumbersome for PGI to balance because of those Omni slots. Then again, they might not have the same chassis structure either I suppose.

[Cart]

That's not what I meant...

When the Clans came, they were superior...because of there equipment AND because most Inner-Sphere Mechs were Stock Variants with Standard Engine, Standard Structure, Standard Heatsinks, Standard Armor...and and and...

And what will they face here? Most Mech with almost even equipment...

Schrottfrosch, on 04 April 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Justin Allard for example converted a battered Centurion into his beloved Yen-Lo-Wang by replacing the stock AC/10 to an AC/20 - a conversion that would be impossible with your system.

Why not? The existing Yen Lo Wang could have a Heavy-Ballistic-Hardpoint...but not EVERY Centurion! With this system, you could make the different Variants REALLY different!
At the Moment, I could pack the same loadout, that I have in the Dragon 5N quickly an easily in the 1N or 1C...so many variants are only use to level the Mech...

[DarkDevilDancer]

I think its restrictive enough really, and in the case of some mechs overly so.

I had alot of trouble getting raven 2x to work for me because of its hardpoints.

If you dont have the flexibility to play how you like it'll turn alot of people away from the game.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Thontor, on 04 April 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Its not the odd builds I worry about... It's variant differentiation. And mech differentiation. As more mechs are added we are going to have more and more comments like "The Stalker can do everything the Awesome can do, what's the point of the Awesome".

Now imagine if the Stalker couldn't boat PPCs like it does, but the Awesome could... Suddenly there is a difference, and the Awesome has a purpose outside of being a 5 ton lighter Stalker.

I see your point, but the reason that doesn't worry me, is that people have claimed that since I started in closed beta and I see every mech out there in the battlefield. Heck, I heard people saying the Awesome was going to make the Catapult obsolete for missile boating, and I still see Cats out there.

People will pick what mechs they like. Besides, if one mech is a bit better than the other from a pure technical standpoint, don't think a good Mechwarrior won't make it work

[N0ni]

Thontor, on 04 April 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Now imagine if the Stalker couldn't boat PPCs like it does, but the Awesome could... Suddenly there is a difference, and the Awesome has a purpose outside of being a 5 ton lighter Stalker.

If this were the case i wouldn't have purchased either. Stalker becomes less creative in what i can put in it (so why bother) and the Awesome becomes FOTM boating PPCs just like the Stalker would have in the first place. In fact, before the Stalker came out the 8Q DID boat PPCs. So one way or another, that would still be there.

[Fastfire]

I dont like the idea, because of the randomness that the actuall Matchmaking system gives.

Such an ruleset would only work *if* the Matchmaking system would check the mechs everybody is using and form up "working" lances, putting into the equatation if a mech design is Fire support, Scout, brawler or whatever and in addition to the tonns, would even out those things too.

That aside you would need to explain each chassis and its variants plus its supposed battlefield roles to people who have no clue about battle tech at all.

Again and in short, with the current random madness of the matchmaking system? NO!
It would only lead to complettly unplayable matches, and we allready have some of them.

That aside, while i would never play it, whats wrong with an AC20 raven?

And, next thing, what about the A1 Catapult?

3 Missile slots in each arm, comes stock with 2*15 launchers, and you want to FORBID this design to use 3*5 launcher bays in each arm?

by your Idea i could either build in 2*20 or 2*15, because the 10 and 5 slot launchers would be another "class" of LRM launchers, this way you completly invalidate a really weak stock design even further, by dissalowing to put the 3 hardpoints it has to any use.

And i am sure, there are WAY more designs which would suffer the same fate.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

no. labs limited enough and its fine the way it is.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Thontor, on 03 April 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

That point is moot, because MWO has different hardpoints for each stock variant... MW4 had just one per mech.

The goal, in my mind, of further limitation is to help differentiate the loadout capabilities of each mech. Right now all of the Stalkers are just too similar... Or the fact that any Jagermech can mount dual AC/20 so it doesn't matter what variant you get. A dual AC/20 Jagermech should certainly be possible, but allowing every variant to do it takes something away from the whole point of habit seperate variants in the first place...

Actually, the point isn't moot because that was one of the major problems with the hardpoint system MW4 used, no variations in the Mechs of the same type. If you saw a Direwolf, you knew almost every single time you saw it exactly what weapons it had without having to get any sensor information on it because it didn't have ANY other possible viable options.

You see an Atlas in MWO, it could be carrying any number of different loadouts. You see 2 DDCs and you don't know what weapons each one will be using and odds are, they'll both be carrying different loadouts. Same with the Jager, I don't run an AC40 version and I see all kinds of loadouts on the different variants, from missile heavy A's to multiple AC2 DDs to dual gauss or AC20 or 4 ERPPC/PPC/LL/LPL on the S.

Hells, I vary my own Spider 5D from 3 MPL to an ERPP or 1 LL and 2 ML or 2 MPL + TAG and I've seen people running those same builds and others.

No variation? Maybe if you quit running with people who ONLY use what they think is the most OP and exploitable weapons you'd see that among the general population of MWO there is a huge variance in the Mech loadouts.

Or..maybe it's the total lack of a single build on each chassis that you don't like, since you liked MW4 system so much, after all, it does require one to be able to adapt on the fly to the differences you find in MWO, while in MW4 if you saw a Mech, you knew what it had and didn't have to think about how to deal with it...

[Woska]

If you make the hardpoints more restricted, you might as well remove customization entirely, and it is way too late for that.

[Fastfire]

Thontor, on 04 April 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Yeah, that A1 example is a good reason why I am not a fan of the OP's idea. Keeping the current hardpoint system and just limiting the number of critical slots each weapon type can use in a component would be much better IMO.

That way the A1 would still be able to mount 6 launchers... Just not something like 6 Artemis SRM6

Or just take the approach of Mech warrior tactics,
Split different Parts of the Mech into "subgroups" and have any given weapon take ALL crit slots in a certain subgroup.
For example, the A1 "arms" could have 15 crit slots, divided into 3*5 slots each, now i can put one item into each of those 5 slot large groups, but no weapon could use more then 5 slots.

The advantage of this? You could simply restrict the size of a weapon, without restricting the number of crit slots or restricting a mech to "small lasers only" which would completly invalidate the mech anyway.

And yes, its basicaly what you suggest, just with a bit more of an visual clue to newcomers as to why certain stuff wont fit, i think saying "Ok you have 15 Slots, but only 8 can be launchers and 7 can be nothing" would confuse people a lot.

[anonymous175]

Maybe.

Currently some people are right. Your favorite mech can be shoehorned into what should have been another mech's role because of the not super strict hardpoint rule.

But some people would object to not being able to pack as much firepower as they could if this new system were to take place.