23 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

When looking at what mechs are pushing the meta and how they are doing this, you can clearly see the common theme is. Players like to equip many similar weapons to lower the amount of thought needed to play the game. This is leading to simplistic builds on mechs never meant to be simplistic while invalidating certain mechs from the meta.

I would suggest in adding some new classifications to the hardpoint system to help allievate weapon loadout issues, indirectly help/hurt boating, and being more complex gameplay.

Before I begin, the "more complex" gameplay comes when players have to mix weaponry to combat a range of threats instead of focusing on one system which can overcome most, if not all, threats.

Here is some new classification of hardpoints I would add to weapons:

Break Missile into LRM and SRM hardpoint (and in the future, MRM hardpoint).
Add a Large hardpoint.
Add a NARC/TAG hardpoint.

Large hardpoints allow for equipping large weapons: PPC, ERPPC, Large Pulse Laser, Large Laser, LRM/15, LRM/20, SRM/6, Gauss Rifle, and AC/20.

Mainly, the above is to keep mechs that are "suppose" to not be able to boat from boating. There are many prime examples of this, the Atlas, Stalker, and Highlander are some good examples.

Take the Atlas. The Left Torso has a SRM and LRM location on the mech, but many players will drop either all the SRMs or LRMs so that they can focus 100% on SRMs or LRMs.

Stalker is a great example of boating many large weapons when it's suppose to wield a mix of energy and missile hardpoints. Players end up placing Large Lasers or PPCs in all the energy slots. And in the past, they would do the same with the SRM/LRM slots by either placing all LRMs or all SRMs in slots not meant to do this.

Again, the Highlander is the center of focus by players to utilize hardpoint locations to maximize their boating in ways not intended by the mech.

There is also another reason to put a better classification on mechs, to bring forth mechs that do boat, to actually be boats without other mechs performing their intended function. It also legitimize other mechs that fall to the wayside because of the current hardpoint system. Some good examples is the Catapult, Awesome, and Hunchback.

The HBK-4G is a good example of a mech that falls to the wayside. It's suppose to be the mech at 50t to wield the AC/20. But the HBK-4H completely encrouches on the 4G because it too can equip the AC/20, but with more hardpoints!

All the Awesomes have fallen out of favor due to other mechs that can boat large energy weapons just as well as the Awesome, but with none of the drawbacks of being a large target. The AWS-8Q should be one of the few Large Energy boats in the game. This will being back the uniqueness of the chassis.

Oh, the Catapult. The focus of so much tension, but some of the reasons are legitimate. Adding more classifications would help balance the differences between the variants and make it a Large Missile boat.

Just to list a few changes that I would suggest doing to bring back mechs to being unique and different:

Light:

Commando:

COM-3A:
RA: 1 Large SRM, 1 Energy
CT: 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Energy

COM-1D:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
CT: 1 Large SRM, 1 SRM

Jenner:

JR7-K:
RA: 2 Energy
CT: 1 Large SRM
LA: 2 Energy

Raven:

RVN-2X:
RA: 2 Energy
RT: 1 Large SRM
LT: 1 Large Energy


Spider:

SDR-5K:
RA: 2 Ballistic
CT: 1 Large Energy
LA: 2 Ballistic

Medium:

Cicada:

CDA-3C:
RT: 1 Large Energy, 2 Ballistic
LT: 2 Ballistic

Hunchback:

HBK-4G:
RA: 1 Energy
RT: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic
LA: 1 Energy
H: 1 Energy

Centurion:

CN9-AL:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
CT: 2 Energy
LT: 2 LRM

Trebuchet:

TBT-7K:
RA: 1 Large SRM, 1 SRM
RT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
LT: 2 Ballistic

TBT-7M:
RA: 2 Energy
RT: 1 Large LRM
LT: 1 NARC
LA: 1 Energy, 1 Large LRM

Heavy:

Dragon:

DRG-5N:
RA: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic
CT: 1 LRM
LA: 2 Energy

Jagermech:

JM6-DD:
RA: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic
RT: 1 Energy
LT: 1 Energy
LA: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic

Catapult:

CPLT-1A:
RA: 1 Large LRM, 1 LRM, 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Large LRM, 1 LRM, 1 Large SRM

CPLT-4C:
RA: 2 Large LRM
CT: 2 Energy
LA: 2 Large LRM

CPLT-K2:
RA: 1 Large Energy
RT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LA: 1 Large Energy

Cataphract:

CTF-1X:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
RT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LT: 1 Energy
LA: 1 Energy

CTF-4X:
RA: 1 Ballistic, 1 Energy
RT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LT: 1 Energy
LA: 1 Energy

Assault:

AWS-8Q:
RA: 2 Large Energy
RT: 2 Large Energy
LT: 2 Large Energy
H: 1 Energy

AWS-8V:
RA: 1 Large Energy
RT: 2 Large LRM, 1 LRM
LT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
H: 1 Energy

Stalker:

STK-3F:
RA: 2 Energy, 1 LRM
RT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Large SRM
LT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Large SRM
LA: 2 Energy, 1 LRM

Highlander:

HGN-732:
RA: 1 Large Ballistic
RT: 1 Large Energy, 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM
LA: 1 Large SRM, 1 SRM

HGN-733P:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
RT: 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM, 1 LRM
LA: 1 Large SRM

Atlas:

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

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 Zyllos, 25 April 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Isn't this already being argued in two other threads man?

[Zyllos]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 April 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Isn't this already being argued in two other threads man?

You are right, I did not see those when I posted this.

It took me a while to type up.

One difference between their arguments and mine is they want to go back to the MW3 system (limited number of critical slots) where I am just adding a quantifier to the hardpoints, regardless of critical slots.

Edited by Zyllos, 25 April 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

See I am not at all in favor of more limitations. Personally I want to be able to spend C-Bills to be able to move my HPs around. It is fluffed that A Mech was able to be made right or left handed to be better suited for southpaws. This mean that HP would need to be adjustable. An Atlas would be better balanced if it had an AC and a Missile HP on both sides don't you think?

[Zyllos]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 April 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

See I am not at all in favor of more limitations. Personally I want to be able to spend C-Bills to be able to move my HPs around. It is fluffed that A Mech was able to be made right or left handed to be better suited for southpaws. This mean that HP would need to be adjustable. An Atlas would be better balanced if it had an AC and a Missile HP on both sides don't you think?

Well, that is an interesting point, but not the focus of the suggestion.

The new classification is to make mechs that are suppose to be boats, be boats, and those that are not boats, to not be boats. This also makes mechs that are unique in loadout unique.

[Karl Streiger]

Do you have considered to give the A1 a NARC/TAG hard point?

I also would like to see the somewhere else mentioned "anti infantry mounts"

that will change lot of Mechs completely

A lot of people will not like this idea - because it will kill the Mechs they are used too, while it will have positive affect on players that allready have ideas to use the full arsenal of there Mechs loadout (I always try to have LRMs and SRMs in my Atlas for example)

A similar suggestion of mine starting with a unflexible MechLab...however can allow any player to build any mech they want - if they make the right choices

I also think we need to glue all the MechLab Suggestions somehow together....

[Zyllos]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Do you have considered to give the A1 a NARC/TAG hard point?...

No, and here is why:

TAG, techically, should be medium range, or 450m. So, boats should not be using their own TAG but instead relying on scouts. NARC is also in the same boat.

A good example of this is the TBT-7M. It has a NARC tube located in the LT. That means this mech has to expose himself to the enemy to land then NARC, then run away to get the bonus due to LRM range for himself.

Another example is the STK-5M, again with a NARC. That mech suffers even more due to it's speed.

So, if the TAG/NARC is not stock on a mech, I just don't think it belongs on the mech.

[Karl Streiger]

Zyllos, on 26 April 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

No, and here is why:

TAG, techically, should be medium range, or 450m. So, boats should not be using their own TAG but instead relying on scouts. NARC is also in the same boat.

A good example of this is the TBT-7M. It has a NARC tube located in the LT. That means this mech has to expose himself to the enemy to land then NARC, then run away to get the bonus due to LRM range for himself.

Another example is the STK-5M, again with a NARC. That mech suffers even more due to it's speed.

So, if the TAG/NARC is not stock on a mech, I just don't think it belongs on the mech.

Hm the reason for the NARC on these Mechs is that NARC was supposed to help SRM and LRM
not to be used in addition to other systems.
TAG shouldn't have any effect on Artemis or LRM firing with LOS.

I don't like how MWO uses those systems...but that is the how ...and the A1 could really use TAG or NARC when he should still be reliable (i wouln't even consider the Mech, when I'm not able to deliver "danger" close LRM support in Line of Sight with the enemy)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 April 2013 - 06:37 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

When looking at what mechs are pushing the meta and how they are doing this, you can clearly see the common theme is. Players like to equip many similar weapons to lower the amount of thought needed to play the game. This is leading to simplistic builds on mechs never meant to be simplistic while invalidating certain mechs from the meta.

I would suggest in adding some new classifications to the hardpoint system to help allievate weapon loadout issues, indirectly help/hurt boating, and being more complex gameplay.

Before I begin, the "more complex" gameplay comes when players have to mix weaponry to combat a range of threats instead of focusing on one system which can overcome most, if not all, threats.

Here is some new classification of hardpoints I would add to weapons:

Break Missile into LRM and SRM hardpoint (and in the future, MRM hardpoint).
Add a Large hardpoint.
Add a NARC/TAG hardpoint.

Large hardpoints allow for equipping large weapons: PPC, ERPPC, Large Pulse Laser, Large Laser, LRM/15, LRM/20, SRM/6, Gauss Rifle, and AC/20.

Mainly, the above is to keep mechs that are "suppose" to not be able to boat from boating. There are many prime examples of this, the Atlas, Stalker, and Highlander are some good examples.

Take the Atlas. The Left Torso has a SRM and LRM location on the mech, but many players will drop either all the SRMs or LRMs so that they can focus 100% on SRMs or LRMs.

Stalker is a great example of boating many large weapons when it's suppose to wield a mix of energy and missile hardpoints. Players end up placing Large Lasers or PPCs in all the energy slots. And in the past, they would do the same with the SRM/LRM slots by either placing all LRMs or all SRMs in slots not meant to do this.

Again, the Highlander is the center of focus by players to utilize hardpoint locations to maximize their boating in ways not intended by the mech.

There is also another reason to put a better classification on mechs, to bring forth mechs that do boat, to actually be boats without other mechs performing their intended function. It also legitimize other mechs that fall to the wayside because of the current hardpoint system. Some good examples is the Catapult, Awesome, and Hunchback.

The HBK-4G is a good example of a mech that falls to the wayside. It's suppose to be the mech at 50t to wield the AC/20. But the HBK-4H completely encrouches on the 4G because it too can equip the AC/20, but with more hardpoints!

All the Awesomes have fallen out of favor due to other mechs that can boat large energy weapons just as well as the Awesome, but with none of the drawbacks of being a large target. The AWS-8Q should be one of the few Large Energy boats in the game. This will being back the uniqueness of the chassis.

Oh, the Catapult. The focus of so much tension, but some of the reasons are legitimate. Adding more classifications would help balance the differences between the variants and make it a Large Missile boat.

Just to list a few changes that I would suggest doing to bring back mechs to being unique and different:

Light:

Commando:

COM-3A:
RA: 1 Large SRM, 1 Energy
CT: 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Energy

COM-1D:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
CT: 1 Large SRM, 1 SRM

Jenner:

JR7-K:
RA: 2 Energy
CT: 1 Large SRM
LA: 2 Energy

Raven:

RVN-2X:
RA: 2 Energy
RT: 1 Large SRM
LT: 1 Large Energy


Spider:

SDR-5K:
RA: 2 Ballistic
CT: 1 Large Energy
LA: 2 Ballistic

Medium:

Cicada:

CDA-3C:
RT: 1 Large Energy, 2 Ballistic
LT: 2 Ballistic

Hunchback:

HBK-4G:
RA: 1 Energy
RT: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic
LA: 1 Energy
H: 1 Energy

Centurion:

CN9-AL:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
CT: 2 Energy
LT: 2 LRM

Trebuchet:

TBT-7K:
RA: 1 Large SRM, 1 SRM
RT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
LT: 2 Ballistic

TBT-7M:
RA: 2 Energy
RT: 1 Large LRM
LT: 1 NARC
LA: 1 Energy, 1 Large LRM

Heavy:

Dragon:

DRG-5N:
RA: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic
CT: 1 LRM
LA: 2 Energy

Jagermech:

JM6-DD:
RA: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic
RT: 1 Energy
LT: 1 Energy
LA: 1 Large Ballistic, 2 Ballistic

Catapult:

CPLT-1A:
RA: 1 Large LRM, 1 LRM, 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Large LRM, 1 LRM, 1 Large SRM

CPLT-4C:
RA: 2 Large LRM
CT: 2 Energy
LA: 2 Large LRM

CPLT-K2:
RA: 1 Large Energy
RT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LA: 1 Large Energy

Cataphract:

CTF-1X:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
RT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LT: 1 Energy
LA: 1 Energy

CTF-4X:
RA: 1 Ballistic, 1 Energy
RT: 1 Energy, 1 Ballistic
LT: 1 Energy
LA: 1 Energy

Assault:

AWS-8Q:
RA: 2 Large Energy
RT: 2 Large Energy
LT: 2 Large Energy
H: 1 Energy

AWS-8V:
RA: 1 Large Energy
RT: 2 Large LRM, 1 LRM
LT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
H: 1 Energy

Stalker:

STK-3F:
RA: 2 Energy, 1 LRM
RT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Large SRM
LT: 1 Large Energy, 1 Large SRM
LA: 2 Energy, 1 LRM

Highlander:

HGN-732:
RA: 1 Large Ballistic
RT: 1 Large Energy, 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM
LA: 1 Large SRM, 1 SRM

HGN-733P:
RA: 1 Large Energy, 1 Energy
RT: 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM, 1 LRM
LA: 1 Large SRM

Atlas:

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

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

How about hell no.

[Sephlock]

Just bring back purple hardpoints. My Awesome needs some dakka.

[Yokaiko]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well, that is an interesting point, but not the focus of the suggestion.

The new classification is to make mechs that are suppose to be boats, be boats, and those that are not boats, to not be boats. This also makes mechs that are unique in loadout unique.

Forced LRM on Dragon? The A1 is a useless monstrosity, no SRM on stalkers? Do not want.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

You are right, I did not see those when I posted this.

It took me a while to type up.

One difference between their arguments and mine is they want to go back to the MW3 system (limited number of critical slots) where I am just adding a quantifier to the hardpoints, regardless of critical slots.

I agree with the premise, but feel that it might take it too far. "Large SRM" slot for example would mean what? Essentially the mech had to have an SRM6 there? Why not simply stick with basic categories, ballistic, missile and energy, then institute "support" (tag, MG, flamer, AMS, small lasers), "small" (medium lasers, maybe large laser, ac2/5 and UAC5, SRM2,4 and SSRM2, LRM5/10) and "large" (Large Pulse (maybe, probably, standard Large too), PPCs, AC10, LBX, AC20, Gauss, SRM6, LRM15 and 20)?

It eliminates boating, but doesn't force people into totally "sterile, stock" feels, as for example tossing a pair of LRM5s with Artemis and TAG on a Commando is certainly not balance breaking, whereas a 5 LRM15 or 6 PPC Stalker currently might be (though a lot has to do with heat threshold)

Basically I would love to see the meta refocus to where the "designated" boats like the Awesome could do it's job, and not be outshined at it by a mech never designed to be a boat, like the Stalker, whereas the Stalker is still more than bloody deadly with nearly stock loadouts. (and would be moreso if less Hex Stalkers were the norm)

also, while initially QQing would be epic over nerfing everyones pet Cheez build, I think once the Meta evolved into more balanced builds as a whole, most people would eventually get over it, and look for ways to max teh new Meta, but I don't think it could have near the negative impact of the old (current) Meta.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 26 April 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

No. This just puts on more needless limitations.

What I would prefer is to see additional hardpoint types in this form:
In addition to
- Ballistic
- Energy
- Missile

I want to see:
- Direct Fire (Example: K2 Arms; Awesome PPC holes, 1 of those ballistic slots on the Jagermech)
- Utility (Machine Gun, Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, SRM2, SSRM2, NARC; Cicada, Raven 4X, Spider and K2 Machine Gun Slots)

[MasterErrant]

yet again there are no loadout issues there is a heat system issue and a convercence issue. if those are fixed then uberboats become self correcting. boating is part of the game and half the mechs in the version are explicitly designed to do it.
Cataputl Jeagermech, awsome, trebuchet., jenner and cicada are all boats.

[Bishop Steiner]

MasterErrant, on 26 April 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

yet again there are no loadout issues there is a heat system issue and a convercence issue. if those are fixed then uberboats become self correcting. boating is part of the game and half the mechs in the version are explicitly designed to do it.
Cataputl Jeagermech, awsome, trebuchet., jenner and cicada are all boats.

and again, obviously, we disagree with you. Heat and convergence are only PART of the problem. And no one is suggesting that the Hard Points are the ONLY issue.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Breaking up missiles just overcomplicates things. If a scout wants to have LRMs let them.

[Zyllos]

Yokaiko, on 26 April 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Forced LRM on Dragon? The A1 is a useless monstrosity, no SRM on stalkers? Do not want.

Well, the problem behind just having a LRM/SRM hardpoint is to keep those mechs that use a specific type, to keep using that specific type. The LRM in the CT of the Dragon is because the Dragon is suppose to be a fast striker/calvary mech.

But I see 1 Large SRM on the stalker in the LT/RT, so I am not sure about that.

The CPLT-A1 is suppose to either be the premier LRM boat (possibly holding 2x LRM/20s and 2x LRM/10s) or a mixed missile platform with 2x LRM/15s, 2x LRM/5s, and 2x SRM/6s. But the thing is not suppose to be boating 6x SRM/6s because that is not the point of the mech.

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

and again, obviously, we disagree with you. Heat and convergence are only PART of the problem. And no one is suggesting that the Hard Points are the ONLY issue.

What is stated here is 100% true. This a multifaceted problem of weapon balance, all manor of things like RoF, DPS, HPS, tonnage, boating capability, weapon convergence, engine rating effecting accuracy (by affecting torso twist speed), DHS being different dependent on engine size and equipping location, SHS, ect.

There is so many co-dependent systems that changing one thing affects the balance of everything. This is why many people advocated to keep the MWO values as close to CBT as possible and only tweak those areas that we know or knew was broken or messed up.

[Panzerman03]

This is a terrible idea. Would lead to crap builds that suck at all ranges. How does a Commando with the option to mount twice as many SRMs as my D-DC make sense?

[Skyfaller]

Look I know you put a lot of time into it but what you're proposing literally kills the versatility and thus the fun and longevity of the game.

Here's a much simpler solution:

Missiles:

Each mech already has a set # of launcher tubes as part of their model. Stalker 3H for example, is 2x 20 tube in arms and 6x tube in the torso sides.

So... just allow people to add up as many launchers as they can fit in the number of tubes. If you want to put 10 SSRMs in the 20 tube you can do it. If you want to put 2 LRM10s you can do it. The launchers cannot exceed the number of tubes however. That means you cannot put an LRM20 in the side torsos... max is either a 1x SRM6, 1x SRM4, 3x SRM2, 3x SSRM2 or 1x LRM5.

This enables 'boating' but is still limiting in tonnage, crit slots and heat.. but it prevents boating the largest launchers since the mech frame itself cannot support them.


The same principle can be used for the energy weapons and projectiles up to a certain point. Assign 'size' # to the weapons.

size 1 = small laser, mg, Tag, flamers
size 2 = medium lasers, AC2
Size 3 = large laser, ER large laser, ac5, lbx10m ac 10, ac20, gauss, PPCs


Thus, just like with the tube system, a player can load as many size X weapons into size X slots in the mech as long as it doesnt exceed the mech weapon slot size. Essentially you enable the mech's frame to play a role in the weapon loadout just like the launcher tubes do.

A stalker 3F for example would be something like this:

Arms: 10-tube launcher + 2 x size 3 energy slots
LT/RT: 6-tube launcher + 1 x size 2 energy slots

With this system, a short range combat 'boated' stalker could potentially load:

Arms: 10 SSRMs2 + 6 small lasers (total of both arms)
LT/RT: 6 SSRMs2 + 4 small lasers (total)

So yes, the SSRMs are set up to do the bulk of the damage with the small lasers backing it up at very close range. Deadly? Yes. Heavy? Not really. Different than a 6 PPC stalker? Nope. Heat would run at about the same and the damage output is close at 78 dmg per ssrm+small laser salvo. The difference is the point blank range.

Another setup could be

Arms: 4 LRM5s, 2 large lasers, 4 med lasers, 1 tag, 1 flamer (total both arms)
LT/RT: 2 medium lasers, 2 LRM5s, 2 narcs (total)

But its an example of the flexibility the system would give WITHOUT giving anything a super-OP advantage. I know, I cringe when I see 16-SSRM setup on the stalker but i remind myself: by boating those ssrms he has used up crit slots, tonnage and generates a good amount of heat only to do 48 damage per salvo.

The second build can potentially do a lot more damage from much farther away but its deliver is different. All in all both stalkers in these alternate builds are not signficantly more or less effective than they are now. The only thing is the mechs are obeying size limitations as set per their frame models..

[Sable Dove]

I said yes, but I don't agree to splitting LRMs and SRMs in general. Have them as subdivisions of Missile hardpoints, so SRM hardpoints are SRM-only, as are LRM points LRM-only. But allow some mechs to have generic Missile hardpoints, that can be SRM, SSRM, or LRM.

Otherwise, I can't see it making the game any worse than it is now.

Either that, or go the other way, allowing us to alter hardpoints, at least partially. And fix boating using one of the many other suggestions thusfar ignored by PGI because they don't see it as an issue because then they would have to do something about it.