7 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

I find this interesting.

We are all familiar with the MWO Hardpoints system. From public announcements of MWT (Mechwarrior Tactics), they use a different system I call Grouped Criticals. As seen from this public topic, you can put weapons anywhere but the critical spaces of each area are in groups so the weapon has to fit in the group.

From the first picture, you see the weapon groups (they can also hold other items) and it is obvious the example Catapult cannot mount some things like AC/20s and AC/10s. No dual big ACs on this Mech.

Note the second picture showing some open critical spaces and others occupied by equipment like Heat Sinks, they were not in the first so these criticals cannot be used for weapons as described.

While I understand people wanting the freedom to do as they wish with regard to customizing, some restrictions in both games show yet there is the boating issue here. Boating up to 5 LRM20s, dual AC/20s that could lead to dual UAC20s down the roads, etc. Also some Mech Hardpoints seem wonky in MWO such as the HBK-4G, 3 Ballistic in the RT and few Energy severly limit what can be done with it compared to other Hunchbacks.

So I am curious what people think when comparing these 2 methods of customizing.

[tenderloving]

What we really need is a blended system with sized hardpoints. It is so painfully obvious that we're going to start running into serious diversity and role issues (why buy a Hollander if a Raven can fit a Gauss in its ARM) in the future with our current system.

[jay35]

Different systems for different types of games. Each is appropriate for its game.

[Arclight]

tenderloving, on 04 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

What we really need is a blended system with sized hardpoints. It is so painfully obvious that we're going to start running into serious diversity and role issues (why buy a Hollander if a Raven can fit a Gauss in its ARM) in the future with our current system.

^Something like that. For example, currently the HBK-4G is irrelevant because the 4H does the same and offers more options on the side. If the 4H couldn't mount an AC/20 due to hardpoint/critical grouping restrictions, the 4G would become relevant again.

Edited by Arclight, 04 April 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[Dr Herbert West]

tenderloving, on 04 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

What we really need is a blended system with sized hardpoints. It is so painfully obvious that we're going to start running into serious diversity and role issues (why buy a Hollander if a Raven can fit a Gauss in its ARM) in the future with our current system.

This. The urbanmech seems to be popular around here (for some ridiculous reason), but you can already mount an urbanmech config with a raven. They've tried to make variants more diverse by adding hardpoints beyond the minimum required for the stock config, but this can only work so far.

The answer is to size restrict hardpoints. This has been known since closed beta (actually even before closed beta).

[slayerkdm]

Thats my feeling also, we need both Hard point restrictions on type and size. It would give variants meaning, as for now, there is usually one best variant.

[jay35]

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth if they ever significantly restricted hardpoints on already-released mechs?

There will be a lot of "ZOMG I PAID MONIES FOR THIS PEE GEE EYE AND YOU JUST NERFED IT WTF HOW CAN YOU DO THAT I QUIT, BE BACK TOMORROW."

Edited by jay35, 04 April 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[MrPenguin]

jay35, on 04 April 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth if they ever significantly restricted hardpoints on already-released mechs?

There will be a lot of "ZOMG I PAID MONIES FOR THIS PEE GEE EYE AND YOU JUST NERFED IT WTF HOW CAN YOU DO THAT I QUIT, BE BACK TOMORROW."

Yes, because they'll be the ones making said threads/posts.