49 replies to this topic

[Deamonition]

I know it was discussed a lot, but I think it would make the game better by balancing the strength of every mech.

Weapon slots should have a size limit. This would mostly prevent cheese builds. For example, you shouldn't be able to equip 2 ACs on the CAT that has 2 PPCs (sorry I don't know the variant by heart). Have you seen the size of the actual guns on it, the small cannons in front of it? It doesn't make sense to put anything bigger than machine guns on that.

That would prevent cheese builds, making the game more challenging, realistic and enjoyable.

Cheese builds are ruining the game, in my own humble opinion.

[Deamonition]

My post might not be super clear. I was suggesting that weapon slots should be described as small, medium or large. Therefore, you could not equip an AC20 on a small balistic slot, or a medium one.

[John MatriX82]

Catapult K2. I agree to an extent, I think that it shouldn't be able to mount big AC's or Gauss, but UAC/AC should be doable.

I'd also extend the hardpoint size limit for LRMs and SRMs to the number of tubes available in the section holding the hardpoint(s).

You have a mech (let's take the Catapult A1, has 3 hardpoints on each arm with 15 tubes per arm). Fine, you can either mount a single LRM15 in each (no other LRM launchers) or dual SRM6+SRM2 or x2SRM4+SRM6 per arm or 3xLRM5's and so on. The limit is 15 tubes.

Different kinds of missiles wouldn't be affected, therefore you could mix up LRMs, SRMs and Streaks if you have the hardpoints available, so you can do LRM15+SRM6+SRM4 (or SSRM2) in each arm but you are limited if the total count of SRMS exceeds the number of available tubes.

Edited by John MatriX82, 04 April 2013 - 06:33 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

The dual AC20 cat is not even a cheese build, and it is actually less useful than a dual AC20 Jagermech.

[Deamonition]

I call cheese build any build that completely removes the requirements to have skill. I mean, if you have 2 AC20, just shoot without aiming and you will most likely destroy a component of the other mech...

[Deamonition]

John MatriX82, on 04 April 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Catapult K2. I agree to an extent, I think that it shouldn't be able to mount big AC's or Gauss, but UAC/AC should be doable.

I'd also extend the hardpoint size limit for LRMs and SRMs to the number of tubes available in the section holding the hardpoint(s).

You have a mech (let's take the Catapult A1, has 3 hardpoints on each arm with 15 tubes per arm). Fine, you can either mount a single LRM15 in each (no other LRM launchers) or dual SRM6+SRM2 or x2SRM4+SRM6 per arm or 3xLRM5's and so on. The limit is 15 tubes.

Different kinds of missiles wouldn't be affected, therefore you could mix up LRMs, SRMs and Streaks if you have the hardpoints available, so you can do LRM15+SRM6+SRM4 (or SSRM2) in each arm but you are limited if the total count of SRMS exceeds the number of available tubes.

I agree that this should also apply to missiles.

[Dimitry Matveyev]

This should apply on all weapon systems. Something similar to MW4.
Described my thoughts about hardpoint size here.

[John MatriX82]

Redshift2k5, on 04 April 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

The dual AC20 cat is not even a cheese build, and it is actually less useful than a dual AC20 Jagermech.

The AC 20 cat is more dangerous or equally dangerous than the XL'ed Jagermechs, because these use an easily counter-able engine by side-coring them; whenever they go for slow STDs either they skimp so much armor from the legs that they can be easily legged or they are as fast as normal AC 20 pults (you can put engines under the 250 range).. This while Ac20pults can mount a STD 250 by totally taking away armor from the useless arms, something that in a Jager you can't do or your main weapon will go off.. all by holding big guns well protected in the side torsoes.

The only disadvantage of the AC 20 pult is the huge cockpit, while the only true advantage of the Jager is the ability to shoot better thanks to the arm-mounted cannons or move around faster with larger xls.

Edited by John MatriX82, 04 April 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[Deamonition]

Dimitry Matveyev, on 04 April 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

This should apply on all weapon systems. Something similar to MW4.
Described my thoughts about hardpoint size here.

I knew it had been discussed before :-)
I thought important to bring back the discussion. This would greatly improve the game. Perhaps that if we talk enough about it PGI will implement it.

Thanks for sharing it.

[Deamonition]

It would really be nice to have PGI 's point of view on that. I heard they are not so much interested because they want to leave the freedom to customize the mechs. I really don't think that would be a step back regarding customization. You would still have numerous builds possible. It's really just to prevent illogical builds.

[ArmageddonKnight]

I've mentioned before the idea of seperating weapons in classes by more than just name.

Small Medium Large.

Certain mechs/ hardpoints can only equip certain weapon classes.

So for example u wont see light mechs running around with large class weapons unless the varient is specifical desgined (physicaly) to handle one.

One obviose example is of a medium mech wielding a AC20 (the Hunchback) its designed physicaly to wield it, thats what its big hunch is for.

Unfortunatly i dont forsee this hapening ..atleats any time soon, it would no doubt help balance the game but would **** soooo many people off. Specialy the light mech pilots who rely on the ability to run around fast and have the manuverablity AND have a large weapon or many medium weapons equiped capable of doing Heavy and Assualt level damage.

The restriction of weapon classes would make light mechs use light weapons, which do little amounts of dmg vs larger mechs, as most light mechs only ever hunt larger mechs and run away from other lights, u would see a dramatic reduction in the number of light mechs on the battlefield. Same as when LRM's were nerfed, u saw a massive reduciton in LRM boats ...the majority of players dont like a 'challenge' they want to faceroll stuff.

Would this change be good ..yes ..will the long time fans like it ..yes...will the pick up and play instant gratification players (the majority) like it ..hell no.

Great idea ..but making a game 'harder' is a sure fire way of loosing users nowerdays.

[focuspark]

Why not just be explicit about what weapons can be mounted where. If the hard point should only contain big weapons that go boom, say so and only allow AC/10, LB10X, and AC/20 in the slot. If the hard point should be for little bits of pew pew, then say so and only allow SL and SPL.

This whole hard point + crit size thing is a mess. Nothing stops me from putting flamers where a K2's big guns should be. I figure either be completely open, or lock it down. Remember, the big savings from be restrictive is A) easy balancing of chassis and easier time limiting the amount of art that needs to be created.

[nonplusultra]

It would make the game worse (inflexible/static).

Against it!

[Dimitry Matveyev]

Chaser187, on 04 April 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

It would make the game worse (inflexible/static).

Against it!

It would make the game better! (more flexible).

Good idea!

I think it would make diferent chasis variants more unique, it would give each chasis more specific role on the battlefield and would expand the meaning of a teamwork.

Edited by Dimitry Matveyev, 04 April 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Urza Mechwalker]

Deamonition, on 04 April 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

I call cheese build any build that completely removes the requirements to have skill. I mean, if you have 2 AC20, just shoot without aiming and you will most likely destroy a component of the other mech...

That is the most stupid statement ever. How in hell 2 AC requires less skill than any other direct fire setup? STOP posting this type of useless stupid statements.
2 AC 20 weight more than basically ANY other combination of weapons to achieve same 40 points of damage, it pays the price for being a focused damage weapon. Hittign with it is same difficulty be 1 2 3 or 100 AC. So STOP TYPING TRASH like "do not need to aim"

Dimitry Matveyev, on 04 April 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

It would make the game better! (more flexible).

Good idea!

I think it would make diferent chasis variants more unique, it would give each chasis more specific role on the battlefield and would expand the meaning of a teamwork.

Chaser is right. It would just make a very few mechs usable. Stop deludign yourself. people will always get the best option. If you cannot fieeld the guns they want on some mechs, then you will just have less variants of mechs running!!


STOP DREAMING WITH TONS OF MULTY WEAPON TYPES MECH IN COMBINED ARMS. That will not happen, because its INNEFICIENT!! And players do not like INNEFICIENCY

[Dimitry Matveyev]

Urza Mechwalker, on 05 April 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Chaser is right. It would just make a very few mechs usable. Stop deludign yourself. people will always get the best option. If you cannot fieeld the guns they want on some mechs, then you will just have less variants of mechs running!!

Disgree. Usable for what? For doing more kills? If we would play an "online shooter about giant robots shooting lazors pew pew", I would agree with you. But this game is positioned as a "giant robot simulator". And different mechs has different roles - some are made for scouting, some for direct support, some for inderect support (btw, that's why there is SO many mechs and chasis variants in Battletech univese). For example - scouts should be effective at scouting, but not in brawling against a 100 tonn heavy firepower platform.
Mounting a heavy particle canon on a light mech is like mounting a howitzer on a motorcicle.

[Royalewithcheese]

Deamonition, on 04 April 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

I call cheese build any build that completely removes the requirements to have skill. I mean, if you have 2 AC20, just shoot without aiming and you will most likely destroy a component of the other mech...

The entire point of running 2xAC20 is being able to do hilarious amounts of pinpoint damage. If you can't aim, it doesn't work.

Incidentally,

[Deamonition]

Urza Mechwalker, on 05 April 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

That is the most stupid statement ever. How in hell 2 AC requires less skill than any other direct fire setup? STOP posting this type of useless stupid statements.
2 AC 20 weight more than basically ANY other combination of weapons to achieve same 40 points of damage, it pays the price for being a focused damage weapon. Hittign with it is same difficulty be 1 2 3 or 100 AC. So STOP TYPING TRASH like "do not need to aim"




Chaser is right. It would just make a very few mechs usable. Stop deludign yourself. people will always get the best option. If you cannot fieeld the guns they want on some mechs, then you will just have less variants of mechs running!!


STOP DREAMING WITH TONS OF MULTY WEAPON TYPES MECH IN COMBINED ARMS. That will not happen, because its INNEFICIENT!! And players do not like INNEFICIENCY

Typing trash? Chill the hell out dude. Double AC20 will destroy any component it hits, so stop talking like it requires skill.

What the hell with the attitude anyway? I'm not calling anyone stupid or saying trash. So chill the **** out.

Just connect your hits with your double AC20 and you destroy components. That is rather easy.

For anybody else with "normal" builds, you actually need to know the weak points of certain mechs, and focus that spot. You can't one shot destroy it.

Royalewithcheese, on 06 April 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

The entire point of running 2xAC20 is being able to do hilarious amounts of pinpoint damage. If you can't aim, it doesn't work.

Incidentally,

This isn't the size of an AC20. Compare with the HBK

Edited by Deamonition, 07 April 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Typing trash? Chill the hell out dude. Double AC20 will destroy any component it hits, so stop talking like it requires skill.

What the hell with the attitude anyway? I'm not calling anyone stupid or saying trash. So chill the **** out.

Just connect your hits with your double AC20 and you destroy components. That is rather easy.

For anybody else with "normal" builds, you actually need to know the weak points of certain mechs, and focus that spot. You can't one shot destroy it.

The dual AC/20 build (like builds that stack PPCs, or Large Lasers, or really anything but missiles) has a high aiming requirement. Sure, you can just fire randomly, trash mechs with weaker builds, and perform mediocre-to-well, but that loadout only gets really scary if you know what to aim at and can hit it. Precision damage is only as precise as the player running it, after all.

[blinkin]

Deamonition, on 07 April 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

This isn't the size of an AC20. Compare with the HBK

if you are going to dance around the real arguments that are made then i shall dance with you.

there is no clearly defined size for any AC weapon:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.^[1] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:"