14 replies to this topic

[MAXrobo]

I propose that hard points should be broken up into 5 different categories instead of the current 3.

1) Break lasers into Heavy and light lasers. Light lasers are any energy weapons 3 tons and under, Heavy lasers would be any energy weapon 3.5 Tons and up (to my knowledge there are no 2.5-4.5 laser weapons in battletech canon, but just to be comprehensive I cover everything here).
I realize there is actually a class of weapons called heavy lasers that would considered light lasers in my ranking (ironic isn't it?) so the names might have to be changed.

2) Separate LRM launchers and SRM launchers. SRMs would include SRM 2-4-6, SSRMs and NARC. LRMs would cover LRM 5-10-15-20. When/If MRMs are released they could ether have their own separate category or fit in both SRM or LRM hard points (I would personally go with the latter but it would depend on balance needs when they are implemented).

3) All ballistics would stay as one category. This could also be broken up into light and heavy (UAC5 and below for light, anything higher is heavy?) however there is not a clear separation in balistics like with missiles and lasers, and most act very similar in the first place.

Right now there is no restriction on heavy verses light weapons within each category so people are freely swapping small lasers with PPCs and LRM 20s with SSRM 2s. This is making multiple variants and mechs of similar weights less distinct. As of current, you cant even get an estimate of what you will be facing by seeing the mech, and individual variants are often indistinguishable.
This would also help with the problem of boating that many people complain about (though I don't have much of an issue with it personally). Stalkers couldn't replace their medium lasers with more PPCs and Catapults wouldn't be bringing large amounts of SRMs to fights. But more importantly, it would bring some more variety to combat and make the choice of what mech each person should pilot a bit more meaningful.

Agree? disagree? like it but want some changed? I dont put a poll like most cause I would like to hear what people think of this, instead of just vote and leave.

-cheers

[Bobzilla]

I like the idea, but I don't like haveing even less control over mech custimization. Also I think this could be botched (sorry for the lack of confidence pgi) causing a larger rift in mech veriants that work well vs those that don't. I could see them making the energy HP on the ballistic spider a small one, and the 3L's all small with small missle hp's.

With missle hp's you could have it broken down into one being SSRM, SRM2, SRM4, LRM 5, and the other being SRM6,LRM10, LRM15 and LRM20. More of a damage separation than a title separation.

[Elyam]

I'd rather the original BT rules for mech construction where availability of resources (parts. technicians, access to facilities, c-bills, contacts, etc.) and complexity of chassis alteration are what govern allowable builds within the space/tonnage/heat paradigm - not hardpoints. However, since a hardpoint system is easier to impliment in the MWO-type environment, I concur with the Op in spirit that a more detailed form of hardpoint separation is needed, and with the definite addition of a separation between normal ballistics and machine guns.

Edited by Elyam, 19 April 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Viperion]

I like the idea.. although mine suggestion is a tad different but simple

say ballistic; all up to ac 2 is light, ac5 and uac5 is medium and ac10 and up is heavy. so lets say that k2 has heavy energy hardpoint at arms, heavy energy hardpoints at torso and ballistic hardpoint at torso is medium/light.

just simplify to 3 categories; Light, medium and heavy.

but yeah.. it would cause some uproar if some "players" whine about it. but you get a reasonable way to avoid "cheese build"

And yes you don't get the large variant to choose but remember that community warfare arrive we get to have alot of different types of weapon in different categories. Not to mention clan tech arrive later launch.

[Hotthedd]

I would even go so far as to give TAG and NARC their own separate hardpoints.

[MAXrobo]

@bobzilla: My reasoning for separating SRMs and LRMs was because of function, not necessarily damage. I didn't want things such as the catapult and treb to be running around as brawlers when they were designed as a support mech. simmilarly, something like an atlases SRMs, which are there as sidearms to its heavier primary arsenal, to be used to make LRM boats and take on a role it wasn't designed for.

@Elyam: the problem I have with TT version of the mech lab is that there is no reason to have separate mechs of different weights. Almost everything is open ended. Having a cent a treb and a hunchback would be pointless as they would all be able to use the same weapons.

I'm also cautious of over complicating things. If there are too many different types of hard points than it might get too confusing for new players entering the game (and we know pgi is concerned about this). also remember that the more types of hardpoints you put in, the less you get to customize your mech which is a huge part of this game (I'm the biggest offender of messing with my build after every match, I admit).

Edited by MAXrobo, 19 April 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[LackofCertainty]

I could see a tag/narc slot. However, If a person still wants to throw a Tag into one of their laser slots, let them. (same for narc)

I don't like the OP's suggestion, because it would drastically reduce the level of customization.
-Are you using the A1 catapult? Well now you're only allowed to run LRM's. Absolutely no choice for said mech.
-Are you playing the 4P hunchback? Well, now instead of having a little choice in the matter, you're basically hedged into: SL boat, ML boat, or MPL boat. (which are all damn near identical in playstyle)
-Are you running the 5K spider? Well, now your only viable option is to try to run an AC2 with ML as backup.


There's lots of examples like this, where certain mechs would basically be hedged into 1 or 2 viable builds, rather than the slew of options we have now.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 19 April 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[Garth Erlam]

MAXrobo, on 19 April 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

@bobzilla: I didn't want things such as the catapult and treb to be running around as brawlers when they were designed as a support mech.

Why? Why force people who like a chassis to only play with one style of combat?

[Hotthedd]

LackofCertainty, on 19 April 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I could see a tag/narc slot. However, If a person still wants to throw a Tag into one of their laser slots, let them. (same for narc)

I don't like the OP's suggestion, because it would drastically reduce the level of customization.
-Are you using the A1 catapult? Well now you're only allowed to run LRM's. Absolutely no choice for said mech.
-Are you playing the 4P hunchback? Well, now instead of having a little choice in the matter, you're basically hedged into: SL boat, ML boat, or MPL boat. (which are all damn near identical in playstyle)
-Are you running the 5K spider? Well, now your only viable option is to try to run an AC2 with ML as backup.


There's lots of examples like this, where certain mechs would basically be hedged into 1 or 2 viable builds, rather than the slew of options we have now.

Throwing a TAG into an energy (laser/PPC) slot? sure. Throwing an ERPPC into a TAG slot? Not so much. Throwing a NARC launcher in a missile slot? Okay. Throwing an LRM20 on a NARC slot? Not Okay (aside from the cool machine gun graphics and sound).

[MAXrobo]

Garth Erlam, on 19 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Why? Why force people who like a chassis to only play with one style of combat?

Because we have a medium mech for close range combat. its called hunchback and it is a rare find right now because people can make a "better hunchback" out of other mechs that aren't designed for it. I don't have a problem with customization (as i stated, i love messing with my builds after every match and trying new things). the problem for me comes when entire mechs become obsolete because a ranged missile mech is now a better brawler than the brawlers.

on top of that, different varients have more use. if you really like the treb (like i do) but want to mix up you play style, then you can get a 7K. if you want a catapult that has more of a punch at close range, you can buy a C1 for the 4 (light in this case) laser slots, or the K2 for heavier ballistics and bigger lasers such as large pulse lasers or

things like the catapult or jagermech are very specialized mechs, so when you buy one, you know you are getting something to do a specific job. while something like an Atlas or centurion are more well rounded. if you enjoy switching up play styles then there are mechs designed to do just that.

[Atayu]

No just No, There is already 2 little customization there needs to be more available not less. This is a bad idea in so many ways, It would cripple many chassis. Lots of people would no longer be able to really build mechs to your play style. If you want really limited builds you should be playing something like WOT that has very little customization. For many many players the best part of mechwarrior has always been building your own unique mech loadouts. Limiting the amount you can customize mechs would reduce the population allot as that is keeping many people in game that would have left by now because of the slow rate of content released. Several of us already have the pokemon thing going on meaning we have all the current mechs in our garage or at least all the ones we want with tons of cbills sitting there. All we really have to do now is make new joke builds and play around with them. Anything that reduces customization is a bad thing they need more not less.
Like there should be a few company's medium lasers available with slightly different stats, That is just a example as there should be that for almost every type of weapon. Then they can add in the multi types off ammo that should be in the game.

[Nathan Foxbane]

MAXrobo, on 19 April 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Because we have a medium mech for close range combat. its called hunchback and it is a rare find right now because people can make a "better hunchback" out of other mechs that aren't designed for it. I don't have a problem with customization (as i stated, i love messing with my builds after every match and trying new things). the problem for me comes when entire mechs become obsolete because a ranged missile mech is now a better brawler than the brawlers.

on top of that, different varients have more use. if you really like the treb (like i do) but want to mix up you play style, then you can get a 7K. if you want a catapult that has more of a punch at close range, you can buy a C1 for the 4 (light in this case) laser slots, or the K2 for heavier ballistics and bigger lasers such as large pulse lasers or

things like the catapult or jagermech are very specialized mechs, so when you buy one, you know you are getting something to do a specific job. while something like an Atlas or centurion are more well rounded. if you enjoy switching up play styles then there are mechs designed to do just that.

And yet there is massive evidence in lore of both Successor States and pilots taking 'Mechs that were meant to do one thing and specializing them to do the exact opposite. See the Catapult for two good examples, the K2 and custom 'Mech Butterbee. Not only is your reasoning selfish, but not in keeping with the established BT universe and general Battlemech build rules. The current hardpoint system adheres to most of the build rules (except single large weapon location splitting, ECM and JJ chassis restrictions all of which have fair justifications) and spirit of customization while imposing limits to keep the visual aesthetics intact. Your proposal places extreme limits on play style options and does nothing but force people into a certain chassis if they want to play a given role rather than customize a chassis for any role they want within the limits of a chassis' basic aesthetic design and general weapon type loadout.

[Sybreed]

Garth Erlam, on 19 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Why? Why force people who like a chassis to only play with one style of combat?

let's see it the other way around. Why force people to a chassis that's the only good one at the style of combat they like?

Because right now, a Splatcat or Jagermech are better brawlers than a Dragon, a Trebuchet with SRMs is a better brawler than a Hunchback, 4 PPC Stalkers, PPC+Gauss Highlander/Cataphracts are better snipers than the Awesome.

If i want to snipe, I'm forced to a chassis, otherwise I'm gimping myself thanks to the current hardpoint system.

If I want to snipe, I need to get something that can either boat PPCs or ideally have jumpjets. If I want to brawl in a heavy, a splatcat (once SRMs are back to normal) will be the go-to mech.

[DeadlyNerd]

And what would the A1 do? suck it up with only LRM15, in other words the worst loadout of em all.

[DasProjektil]

I would not divide the missiles into a LRM and SRM category. Make it like the other classes you suggested - light, medium, heavy.

I think limiting the hardpoints to certain "sub-classes" will reduce the customization of this variant, but on the other hand i think overall you will see more different variants ingame (e.g. CTF-1X with heavy energy and 3D with medium - heavy balistics and medium energy). Because people would not be able to build almost everything with just one variant.

Edited by DasProjektil, 21 April 2013 - 01:49 AM.