210 replies to this topic

[AntiCitizenJuan]

All signs of MW:O's recent imbalances point right back to the concept of Hardpoint Sizes.
Mechs would be not only easier to balance, but also more unique in their own ways as some variants may have different Hardpoint Layouts.

It has been discussed to death. But for a reason.

Would you support the idea of Hardpoint Sizes? Or are you just going to keep on rolling your cheese builds until the game ***** the bed?

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 25 April 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[Nation Uprise]

If MechWarrior 4 did anything right, it was the Hardpoint sizes. Just because a mech had an arm that could equip three energy weapons didn't mean you could equip three PPCs. Either you took three smaller lasers or one PPC.

[DeadlyNerd]

I already stated, if hard points were dynamic meaning that instead of 1 AC10 you can fit 7 MGs but instead of 1 MG you can't fit AC10, cheese would stop and game would be balanced and cheese free. No more 6 PPC stalkers, dual AC20 jagers(although I'd allow for those), twin gauss 4X,IM or 3D, etc.

Alas, our thinking has too much logic so it cannot be accepted.

Also prepare for "hurr durr, this will reduce the amount of varied builds".
As if 2 PPC 1 gauss or 4 PPC sniper builds are variety.

[Varnas]

[MeiSooHaityu]

Nope, I disagree with the OP.

It is true that balance has been hard for the developers to achieve, but half the fun of the game is the Mechlab and especially trying out that crazy build swirling around in your head.

Without that, I would get bored quickly with the mechs I try out. At that point, I might as well go to another shooter *Shrug*

Varnas, on 25 April 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Your Meme is bad and you should feel bad!

[AntiCitizenJuan]

MeiSooHaityu, on 25 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Nope, I disagree with the OP.

It is true that balance has been hard for the developers to achieve, but half the fun of the game is the Mechlab and especially trying out that crazy build swirling around in your head.

Without that, I would get bored quickly with the mechs I try out. At that point, I might as well go to another shooter *Shrug*

Because we see a wide variety of crazy, unique builds all the time now.

Lol. What game are you playing.

[Accursed Richards]

It would have been a good idea if introduced early. But now, players are too used to being able to replace a machine gun with a weapon 30x the weight.

[MeiSooHaityu]

The game I choose to play

Limiting people isn't the answer. If you want less PPC builds or ECMs, etc... Then push for weapon value tweaks or balancing. Hardpoint limitations are in place, it is called Crit slots and available tonnage.

[3rdworld]

Disagree.

Hardpoint sizes just shift the meta to mechs that come stock with larger weapons. It will destroy customization.

Example, with size based hardpoints, the most customization you could do to an Atlas would be putting a Gauss in for a AC/20. That is about it.

[Nation Uprise]

MeiSooHaityu, on 25 April 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

The game I choose to play

Limiting people isn't the answer. If you want less PPC builds or ECMs, etc... Then push for weapon value tweaks or balancing. Hardpoint limitations are in place, it is called Crit slots and available tonnage.

So for you, MW2/3 were the most balanced of all MechWarriors? Where you could boat as many weapons as possible and the only mechs ever used were the Assaults cause they had more critical slots and tonnage? Sorry man, I extremely disagree.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Disagree.

Hardpoint sizes just shift the meta to mechs that come stock with larger weapons. It will destroy customization.

Example, with size based hardpoints, the most customization you could do to an Atlas would be putting a Gauss in for a AC/20. That is about it.

Wrong, you can also swap that Gauss or AC/20 for an AC/10 but include larger/more LRMs/SRMs.

Or add more heatsinks for your ER Large Lasers.

Edited by Zyllos, 25 April 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Wrong, you can also swap that Gauss or AC/20 for an AC/10 but include larger/more LRMs/SRMs.

Or add more heatsinks for your ER Large Lasers.

They are at max tonnage with bigger weapons. Why on earth would I want to downsize?

How could I include larger LRMs? the Hardpoints are size based, so the LRM 20 in the Atlas D cannot get any bigger, and if I wanted to upgrade to Artemis, I would have to put in a smaller LRM rack. The second missile slot would be limited to 2 crits, so wow I could swap a SRM 6 for a LRM 10, unless I upgraded to Art, in which case a LRM 5 is the biggest that can go there.

On the Atlas D, I could not put larges in as the hardpoints would be limited to a single crit. I could drop in MPLS instead of MLs, look at me go.

Edited by 3rdworld, 25 April 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[Zyllos]

What this also does is let certain mechs that are suppose to be boats, be the boats of the game. It also lets certain mechs that are unique be unique within it's weight.

Two excellent examples of this is the HBK-4G and AWS-8Q.

The AWS-8Q is suppose to be the PPC boat of the game. Allow it to be the only mech to equip 6 PPCs.

The HBK-4G is suppose to be the premier 50t mech with an AC/20. But the HBK-4P is just plain better due to a smaller hunch and more hardpoints.

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

They are at max tonnage with bigger weapons. Why on earth would I want to downsize?

How could I include larger LRMs? the Hardpoints are size based, so the LRM 20 in the Atlas D cannot get any bigger, and if I wanted to upgrade to Artemis, I would have to put in a smaller LRM rack. The second missile slot would be limited to 2 crits, so wow I could swap a SRM 6 for a LRM 10.

On the Atlas D, I could not put larges in as the hardpoints would be limited to a single crit. I could drop in MPLS instead of MLs, look at me go.

Well, that is if you follow the MW3 system.

I am saying if you added a Large, SRM, and LRM quantifier, you could do this but still have an open system. This allows mechs with the "Large" quantifier to equip anything in it's place. This allows you to limit the number of large weapon systems in mechs so that they can't be boated, unless that mech is suppose to be a boat.

Look here:

http://mwomercs.com/...loadout-issues/

Edited by Zyllos, 25 April 2013 - 10:20 AM.

[Aeolus Drift]

Nation Uprise, on 25 April 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

So for you, MW2/3 were the most balanced of all MechWarriors? Where you could boat as many weapons as possible and the only mechs ever used were the Assaults cause they had more critical slots and tonnage? Sorry man, I extremely disagree.

You have to remember back in MW3 most of us who weren't in leagues boated the same weapon just for ***** and giggles. I mean sure you could boat a dozen machine guns and take merciless pleasure at watching the enemy daishi's armor get shredded, but you would be hard pressed to have enough ammunition to sustain your dakka-hose. That being said most of the stock configurations performed very well. They were certainly competitive enough that boats could have been generally classified as being gratuitous overkill. that and their was a very real possiblity on some of the mechs to spontaneously combust on builds designed for high heat alpha strikes.

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Well, that is if you follow the MW3 system.

I am saying if you added a Large, SRM, and LRM quantifier, you could do this but still have an open system. This allows mechs with the "Large" quantifier to equip anything in it's place. This allows you to limit the number of large weapon systems in mechs so that they can't be boated, unless that mech is suppose to be a boat.

Look here:

http://mwomercs.com/...loadout-issues/

Looking at your post, I could run pretty much exactly what I said early, actually more restricted because I could not swap the LRMs for SRM or vice versa. Generally speaking, when I critique something, it is best to not suggest the exact thing I critiqued. Your system forces mech to run pretty much stock. You are simply shifting the Meta to those mechs you feel are boats.

With the Atlas D, I could put MPLs for MLs, or Gauss for Ac/20. That is about the most customization I could do. This defeats the entire premise of Mechwarrior.


AS7-D:
RA: 1 Energy
RT: 1 Large Ballistic, 1 Ballistic
CT: 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM, 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Energy

Edited by 3rdworld, 25 April 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[MasterErrant]

I would only support the HP size thing if it were rolled back to something closer to MW4 as in what ever will fit. which would likely find us with fewer actual HPs but more options.


I'm still mot sure what the problem is assign each hardpoint a number of slots. whatever fits fits whatever doesn't doesn't if a cat kt has three energy slots in each amr ten it can fit three spaces of e weapons.
if it's ballistic slots are one point so be it. lets see at the base it would be 4 energy 2x1crit 2x3 crit ballistic 2x1crit so it could mount 2 AC2s nd Eight MLs and slag down ever six seconds.


if a player chooses to boat the fix is you team blasting him off the feild cause he's the threat...

Edited by MasterErrant, 30 April 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

It's becoming clearer and clearer how much this is needed to prevent ridiculous boating. The Stalker was never meant to mount PPCs, the K2 was never meant to boat ballistics, etc., and the result is that a lot of 'mechs are becoming redundant. It's not bad. Not yet. But with as few 'mechs as we have now and as many will eventually be released, it's going to get worse quickly.

Why can a Raven mount the same AC/20 that a Hunchback can, but it doesn't have a huge hardpoint that everyone shoots for first? It's blatantly unfair to allow 'mechs to have all the advantages of large hardpoints with none of the drawbacks. The larger gun models are not enough - and even if they were, PGI plans to ramp up 'mech releases (plus, the Clans are coming eventually); how are they going to keep selling 'mechs if much of a chassis' uniqueness is diluted by redundancy?

I love all the Awesomes, and I run them whenever I'm not grinding. But they have a couple very niche roles they can shine in, whereas the Stalker is largely superior in most other respects. And it largely comes down to the lack of hardpoint sizes.

At first, the lack of limitations was good for diversity. Now, the more 'mechs they release, the worse things are going to get.


Edit: A brief addendum, 3rdworld's posts made good points, and a ForumWarrior never backs down from a worthy opponent.

I would like to just note that this won't fix all boating perfectly. Canon boats like the A1, Jager, and this ******* monstrosity would still be able to do their thing to an extent. I think the developers should stay away from those 'mechs as much as possible.

For the canon boats we have, hardpoint size restrictions will go a long way towards solving the problem. Size restrictions on the A1 and Jagermechs would bring them back into the realm of effective without being cheesy (I speak of the A1 assuming that missiles will again one day not be ****).

On to my rebuttal...

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Hardpoint sizes just shift the meta to mechs that come stock with larger weapons. It will destroy customization.

Example with size based hardpoints, the most customization you could do to an Atlas would be putting a Gauss in for a AC/20. That is about it.

...

...because I could not swap the LRMs for SRM or vice versa.

With the Atlas D, I could put MPLs for MLs, or Gauss for Ac/20. That is about the most customization I could do. This defeats the entire premise of Mechwarrior.

AS7-D:
RA: 1 Energy
RT: 1 Large Ballistic, 1 Ballistic
CT: 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM, 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Energy

To an extent, 'mechs with larger hardpoints would be more valuable for certain builds. But that's exactly how it should be. The Hunchback should get the privilege of mounting a big cannon because it has a huge ******* right torso.

Not everything should be able to boat PPCs. Not everything should be able to boat large ballistics. The more 'mechs they pump out, the more the builds will all look the same. More and more chassis will be made obsolete. Just look at the Awesome; I run them as my primary 'mech, but its shining capability (PPC hardpoints) is overshadowed by just about every other assault with energy hardpoints.

About your Atlas-D example. First, I'm not in favor of limiting LRM/SRM swaps (that would be terrible). Second, I don't think stock weapons should necessarily determine hardpoint size; that should be up to the developers. For instance on the Atlas-D, the arm hardpoints would be 2-slot-capable. Third, I'm also not in favor of limiting down-sizing.

I'm thinking something more like this:
RA: 1 2-Slot Energy
RT: 1 Extra Large Ballistic, 1 Medum Ballistic
CT: 2 1-Slot Energy
LT: 2 Large Missiles
LA: 1 2-Slot Energy

The Atlas would frankly barely be affected. No PPCs, no LL in the CT, no 2xLBX-10s (</3), but everything else would work like it does now. The things most hard-hit currently would be most PPC boats. The K2 and certain LRM boats would have taken a hit (though PPC K2s would be back in force like they should be), but I don't see them around much anymore.

And just in case I gave the wrong impression, this isn't about me being all jelly that I don't get to be special with PPCs in my Awesome. I don't run PPCs in any of my Awesomes. I just hate to see my baby get the short end of the stick, and I hate to see the metagame polluted with cheese weapons because everyone can mount them =[

The only 'mechs that should be capable of mounting large weaponry are the ones that are slow and easy-to-escape and the ones screaming "shoot my big-*** weapon hardpoint."

Edited by Homeless Bill, 08 May 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

See? I knew it, people ignorantly posted disagreements on "variety".

I ask you again, is 4 PPC,6PPC, 1 gauss 2 PPC variety? Everyone is using the biggest guns for the highest alpha just cause they can mount them in places they shouldn't be able to.

Remove the ability of boating PPCs from mechs with medium lasers and you make the awesome the ultimate PPC boater, the way it should be. Remove the ability of placing gauss into AC5 spots and 3D becomes 1 gauss, no PPC mech. Remove the ability of placing LRM20s into certain stalkers and catapults regain their original use as LRM support.

But ofc, it's normal, you don't get it cause you're too narrow minded and looking at this like "durr, but now I can't put PPCs on 9/10 of my mechs".

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 25 April 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[Kristina Sarah McEvedy]

While I like the idea, I don't think it should be that strict or cut and dry.

For example lore-wise if a Mech has two Ballistic points that were only designed to house Machine Guns or AC/5s then that housing shouldn't be able to fit anything bigger. However, if the Mechs design would allow for larger weapons then I think Restricted Hardpoints shouldn't be use.

In closing I think its a great idea, but should be used sparingly and used less as a tool to restrict the game and more as a tool to make the Mechs and Variations more interesting.

[Shumabot]

Joseph Marik, on 25 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

While I like the idea, I don't think it should be that strict or cut and dry.

For example lore-wise if a Mech has two Ballistic points that were only designed to house Machine Guns or AC/5s then that housing shouldn't be able to fit anything bigger. However, if the Mechs design would allow for larger weapons then I think Restricted Hardpoints shouldn't be use.

In closing I think its a great idea, but should be used sparingly and used less as a tool to restrict the game and more as a tool to make the Mechs and Variations more interesting.

In lore nothing aside from tonnage should make a difference, and even that can be stretched pretty far. Hardpoint sizes is strictly a gameplay consideration that would (hopefully) increase mech diversity by not bleaching it out to "which mech can boat the most of todays most meta breaking weapon". If you're not going to allow hardpoint sizes to be restrictive than you're not allowing for hardpoint sizes, since they don't do anything else.

Edited by Shumabot, 25 April 2013 - 12:57 PM.