18 replies to this topic

[Ens]

First of all, its nice that not like in former MW Games, Mechs have truly a role to fulfill.

Like Russ Bullock said in older Interviews there was kind of an "Arms Race" in former MW titles, where ppl tend to get the biggest Mechs and stuff as many Weapons in it as they could.

The Hardpoint System might be a good Effort... but everything whats fine with it, does also make it bad.
This is not new, there is already another "Arms Race" going on.

The so called "cheese" builds are the best examples. 6 Energy Hardpoints on a Stalker...
who would not boat 6 large lasers or the more common 6 ppc´s in it??

it´s the best damn choice.... because its possible. and thats the problem


the hardpoint system is "disturbing" the main roles of some mechs
even to be able to put an ERPPC ( for example ) into a commando is ridiculous to be honest.

another example:
according to sarna....."The Catapult is an offense oriented, second-line fire-support BattleMech......."

some of the well known K2 builds however, are nothing like that
double gauss and especially double ac20 are in the right hands an all out assault playstyle

i don´t hate "cheesebuilds" in general btw, they are just the best examples to explain what i mean and feel about it


the hardpoint system of mw4 wasn´t that bad if it comes to this, you had energy/missile/ballistic and omni if i remember it right, but you had 1 to 4 slots to show the maximum "size" of weapons that could be used
something similar to this would be preferable for mwo as well, in my opinion

player customization is fine, but there have to be at least a bit more restrictions to it



sorry for my english :|

[Beeman]

People for some reason hated the MW4 mechlab but I really like it. I mean, I didn't play it back then so perhaps that's why...I'm more rational about it and not nearly as passionate in terms of nostalgia for the previous games or the tabletop method.

From what I understand, right now we've basically got the tabletop method. Not sure about the hardpoints, but I'm talkin' about the piles of critical slots per body part. That's how mech sheets worked in the tabletop. I think. I never played it, only heard about it here on the forums.

But honestly, the MW4 system was actually really well thought-out in terms of keeping mechs at least somewhat within the bounds of their intended capabilities. No mounting giant gauss rifles unless the mech was designed to do so(and had those huge 7 crit hardpoints) and so on. Really good for keeping with the intended flavor of each mech and I could see that translating really well to our variant system.

I think it might be too late for that type of change. Or not, I don't really know. I doubt the developers would want to make that type of change, at least.

[MasterErrant]

the current hardpoint system isn't just unbalanced it's stupid, as well as illogical. I understant the reasons for hardpoints. In TT all maecg are modifiable but there are clearly stated if subtle rules for taking a mech out of it's "Design function" Taking a Trebuchey and changing out the missle launchers for others is "In design" switching to ACs is not. these rules don't work here so hardpoints...but the implication that a hardpoint that can carry an AC20 is only big enough to mount a single MG is ...well....stupid. so you say that a Hunchie can only mount Ballistics in the RT and set aside seven of it's Internals for that. and then you put up to seven spaces of ballistics into it,.that way if I want to build a weedeater I can (A hunchie with nine MGs.lol)

I actually came here to write this post...

Edited by MasterErrant, 27 February 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Zyllos]

I have seen this idea that the default loadouts should be based on the number of critical slots used in a location is your available critical slots to be used.

This is a nice idea to give emphasis on the difference between Omnimechs and Battlemechs. Battlemechs can only use up that number of critical slots of the same type in a location.

Omnimechs will allow any type of weapon, and any number, in a location, within consideration of the maximum number of critical slots available for that location.

But the arms race issue, I think, is partly due to how convergence works.

[Aim64C]

Honestly, I don't understand a lot of the hate for the MechWarrior 4 style mech-lab. It kept a lot of 'mechs within something resembling their role.

If we are going to keep this game all "tabletop-like" - we could really stand to see implementation of the rules regarding modifications to the loadout. The current hardpoint system is overly simplistic.

Honestly, I don't find many of the "cheese builds" to be all that great or effective. I've been caught flat-footed by a splat-cat, before... but I've put three times as many out of their misery, raining LRMs on them with good spotting support. Usually the PPC stalkers or pulse laser stalkers get eaten alive by light mechs... from what I've seen of them, I'm not impressed.

They have their niches, to be sure - the "splatcat" is, at least in principle, canon... but most of the "cheese builds" don't work so well in combat, and most of the pilots good enough to make use of them in PvP find themselves better served by less circumstance-bound designs.

[MasterErrant]

the PPC stalker is a good indicator of how flawed the heat system is...It tt one salvo of 6 PPCs would produce crippling heat.even with DHS Another Example of the horribly flawed physice in this game. after all a cicada that gererates nine heat over heats in thre salvos. four if not moving. it requires thirty internals to put twenty DHS on a stalker and that would mean +20-22 heat per salvo shutqown after the first shot and boom on the second...

My point is that in the effort to limit mechs abilities they have crippled heavies and assaults felexibility favouring lights and mediums MW4 wasn't perfect but it balanced all of these issue fairly well. some people will always find ways to exploit games flaws and quirks. ....but this team has gone their own way. largely in a effort to make more money but I suspect "just because"

Edited by MasterErrant, 27 February 2013 - 03:40 PM.

[Stardancer01]

I would like to see different weights of mounts
.
LIGHT MOUNT
light 'turret' mount (designed for a light weapon but a medium weapon could be shoe horned in)
the gyro stabilized turret/arm can automatically compensate much faster for light weapons
(25% extra affective range, for light weapons only)
.
MEDIUM MOUNT
Medium 'standardized' mount (designed for a medium weapons but a heavy weapon can be shoe horned in and a light weapon packed out to fit)
the medium mount uses battle tested reliable standardized power supply and recoil absorbers
(20% reload/charge, for medium weapons only)
.
HEAVY MOUNT
Heavy 'reinforced' mount (designed for a heavy weapon but a medium could be packed out to fit & power supply stepped down)
the heavy mount has a engine dedicated power supply and built in ammo conveyer belts, saving hot transformers and ammo multi handlers
(-1 heat, for heavy weapons only)
.
Mega Mount
(Heavy Gauss rifle, long tom, thunder bolt missile system, bomb blast laser....)
(is the only mount that can fit one of these)
.
Tactical mount
(fits a small, medium or a large weapon of its type or Omni)
.
.
If (multiple similar weapons) are fired at once there should be a risk of a jam or overload like the ultra5.
For the Awesome designed for PPCs there should be an overload/jam suppresser for this weapon named in the variant special abilities or skills. Similarly for the 6 medium laser Hunchback
If the weapons over load extra heat should be produced or if jammed un jamming time will need to expire before the weapons are usable again.
The more weapons fired the more likely an over load or jam.

[Corvus Antaka]

pfft the mech4 mechlab was awesome. prevented stuff like the 6 SRM A1. the only mech that was a serious problem was the 6 laser boat due to how lasers worked in mech4.

I for one am sad to see it not return, yet the more I use the mwo mechlab the more I like it, though I remain concerned about boating issues at the same time.

[Aim64C]

Stardancer01, on 28 February 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

I would like to see different weights of mounts

While that's very Space Empires-ish, I don't really think that's compatible with the Battletech universe, in general.

I think the best way to go about it would be to establish certain critical spaces on a 'mech. For example, the Catapult C4 would have two energy criticals in the center torso. It would have a total of, say, five missile criticals in each arm, Artemis counted as a non-missile critical ('ear'). Done.

Though that is still going to leave the A1 capable of being the "splat-cat" (provided you do two or three missile criticals allowed in the left/right torso each). But I'm not sure that's all that big of a problem.

The K2 would get two energy center torso, two ballistic in each side torso (perhaps three), and have four, possibly five energy criticals in each arm.

That way you have a hybrid of the Classic Mechlab and the Mech 4 mechlab.

Overtly large mounts can be utilized by multiple smaller weapons of the same class (with, perhaps, some being able to be direct-fire slots - energy or ballistic), but you can't take a ballistic mount intended for an MG and turn it into an AC20 (or dual AC20s).

I'm mainly focusing on the catapult - because that's what I've been playing to specialize in. It's a pretty kitty and I like it.

That could also come into play when clan weapons start rolling around - while many have a reduced number of criticals - clan weapons also have severely reduced tonnage. I can, literally, remove my LRM20s and replace them with 4 Clan LRM20s. I might have to strip out 2 tons of ammo to preserve my artemis capability (though at that point... does it matter?)

You think splatcat is scary - wait until you have the anime-missile-swarm-cat.

[Homeless Bill]

They have an interesting problem. If they implement hardpoint restrictions now, there will be far fewer viable builds, over half of the community's favorite loadouts will be gone, and there might not be enough diversity.

On the other hand, if they don't do something like that eventually, they'll begin to have tons of redundant 'mechs with extremely small differences.

In my mind, they should do it. The Stalker was never meant to be a better PPC boat than the Awesome. The K2 wasn't meant to be a ballistics-heavy anything. I'd rather suffer the pain of limited options than watch as 75% of 'mechs become obsolete.

[Eddrick]

The way it was done in MechWarrior 4 didn't bother me. I wouldn't mind it if they did that here. All it would do is just limits the size of what you can put there.

I normaly strip a Mech of most of it's weapons and keep the ones I plan on using on it. In exchange for the stripped weapons I add armor and speed.

I pilot a K2 with 4 PPCs. If the MW4 restrictions were put in place, I would use 2 PPCs on the arms and maybe put Lasers and/or AC/2s in the side torsos. I'm a Sniper. I don't need heavy short range weapons and I like the low profile of the Catapult. I possibly would just stick with the 2 PPCs and call it good with MW4 like hardpoints.

I tryed the 6 PPC Stalker. But, it's to slow for my taste.

Edited by Eddrick, 28 February 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[Taelon Zero]

Would hate to see the MW4 system. I liked the MW2 mechlab with no limits. This is most likely the best compromise, to keep everyone equaly happy/unhappy.

[Aim64C]

Taelon Zero, on 28 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Would hate to see the MW4 system. I liked the MW2 mechlab with no limits. This is most likely the best compromise, to keep everyone equaly happy/unhappy.

Honestly, the current MWO system is horrible.

Take my former example: IS LRM 20 - 10 tons, 5 critical spaces. Clan LRM 20 - 5 tons, 4 criticals. No minimum range, maximum range extended to 1.2 klicks.

My current CPLT C4 has 2 LRM 20s with Artemis, BAP, has 2 additional tons of armor, a 73 kilometer top speed (80.9 or something with speed tweak), 8 tons of LRM ammo, and two medium lasers (and a partridge in a pear tree, once that's available as a bobble-head). I'd have to play with the criticals a bit, but I could, literally, swap out those IS LRM 20 launchers for a total of 4 Clan LRM 20s; 80 missiles with no minimum range, each doing 1.8 points of damage

For those of you doing math, that's 144 points of damage.

It's a splat-cat on steroids and rocket boosters drinking PowerThirst.

That's why the current system needs to be addressed. And I've yet to really play around with the other chassis. I'm sure all kinds of insanity could exist on the Stalker once clan weaponry gets introduced.

[Ens]

it doesnt have to be 100% similar to the mw4 system/mechlab.... but there have to be at least some restrictions in terms of weapon size to some specific hardpoints

Homeless Bill, on 28 February 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

...In my mind, they should do it. The Stalker was never meant to be a better PPC boat than the Awesome. The K2 wasn't meant to be a ballistics-heavy anything. I'd rather suffer the pain of limited options than watch as 75% of 'mechs become obsolete.

this

[Torquemada]

Perhaps a compromise is called for. A mixture of hardpoints enabling up to a given number of a weapon type, but also further restrictions such as the size of the hard points being limited.

Using the Commando example from the OP, you restrict the hard point itself to a maximum of one or two energy weapons but also restrict the maximum capacity to two slots being available to energy weapons.

[Jape]

I think all of these problems can be removed by balancing the weapons.

[Ens]

Jape, on 01 March 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

I think all of these problems can be removed by balancing the weapons.

yes and no...
further "balancing" of weapons is only changing the flavor

the ppc was a good weapon before the buff... they are just much more viable now compared to other weapons than before
so was the erppc, except the high heat output


i´m pretty sure by limiting weapon capabilities by size, this would be a better addition to "role warfare" than it is now

[MasterErrant]

while reviewing this post I though of something. In MW$ the "Weapons race" was because of how the cam was written even in the campaign the game gave you little choice. I love running mediun mechs in TT and I preferred them in MW4 but the game was built to constantly escalate.

I think everyone should start out in lights and mediums and have to level up to heavier chassis.

[Ens]

have to dig this out again.

you see where the game is heading....
current loadouts are all plain BS by now :|

edit:

the above might be a too short explanation xD

mwo is currently a total arms race...
you see less and less light mechs and even mediums, and if you do see them it´s ravens mostly.

most of the rare seen jenners and commandos are victims to put it bluntly.

the only thing you see are Dual ac/20 jagers, 3D Phracts with the now common dual ppc + one gauss setup and highlanders with the same kind of build.
the number of PPC Stalkers has changed to the 5 or 6 LL build


so who cares if theres light or medium mechs in the game?
theres no real need for scouts right now...period.
ppl tend to ALWAYS fight in the same areas, nobody cares about flanking


and it won´t change by balancing some damage values or other minor thing on certain weapons.
theres a need for restrictions in terms of weapon size and "mech-roles"

just my two cents.....again :|

Edited by Ens, 07 April 2013 - 11:59 AM.