31 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Hard points are absolutely needed to make 'mechs different from one another, period.

The reason high alpha assaults are such a problem is everyone is driving a high alpha assault. If they are unwilling to limit tonnage we will never, ever have balance.

[Edson Drake]

Quote

I simply want the Annihilator to truly dominate the battlefield. Is that too much to ask?

I remember in MW4 I had an Annihilator with 4 LB-X AC20. It toppled Atlai easily in Solaris. Imagine that, topple an Atlas!

[Asmudius Heng]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

I agree with this. The only role of hard points should be to make different chassis stand out from each other. Any kind of hard point system requires a proper balance of weapons and mechanics, otherwise you just end up with chassis that have "good" hard points, and those that don't.

For example, if Medium Lasers are deemed overpowered, the HBK 4SP and HBK 4P will be superior to a Centurion, regardless of whether the hard points are size limited or not, simply because the 4P and 4SP can have more medium lasers.

If convergence makes it a preferable idea to shoot all your weapons at once so all damage is focused, but you can only do that if all weapons have the same characertistic (e.g. same projectile speed, durations and cycle times), then mechs that can carry of the same weapon are superior to those that cannot. You need a counter-mechanism for this advantage, or remove the advantage all together. (Say, making it problematic to fire all weapons at once because it instantly overheats your mech if you use too many at once, or just not allowing weapons to fire together.)

Yes, all this misconception that hardpoints will bring universal balance is bollocks because there are canon boats and that is fine. It is why boats are so optimal that is the issue. Hardpoint limitations bring diversity as long as weapon and mechanics balance is better otherwise people just gravitate to the best boat etc.

At least with hardpoint limitations when a varient is OP and the mechanics of the game cannot curb it for whatever reason - they can directly look at that chassis for some sort of limitation. Worse handling, individual issues with ammo or heat etc.

When mechs are a little more locked (not a LOT more locked) it is easier to target individiual chassis issues with quirks and tweaks to bring them more in line but keep them closer to the intended role.

There will always be more effective builds out there, but a well balanced game with hardpoint restrictions will allow a greater diversity of mechs and chassis and loadouts that are effective because not one of them can do it all - and not one of them is the ubermech (only if balance is done right)

So - hardpoints - good for diversity - an indirect tool to help balance chassis - NOT an overall system to help with balance and never will be

[Yanlowen Cage]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 May 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

The point is they don't mitigate OP builds. Maybe the current flavor of the month, but what if the next broken weapon, is, say, SRM? Then the mechs witht he most hard points to carry SRMs will work.

Hard points should only be relied on to bring flavour to a chassis and distinguish the different variants and mech options. But don't use it as a balancing tool.

even if srms or ssrms became the flavor of the month having sized hardpoints would limit there use. an 6 pack srm would not fit in a srm 2 slot. So indeed it does mitagate boat to some extent. And remember or reread my post as to PART of a larger fix and this game is broken in more then one way.

[MeiSooHaityu]

A lot of good points. I see where some people are coming from with their statements.

I see where people are talking about a more limited hardpoint system might make chassis more unique. I kind of agree that it would add some differentiation, but I still think I would rather have the current system. It does take some of the character traits away from each chassis, but still many chassis still carry these unique properties regardless (Hunch has a vulnerable RT, Centurion has a vulnerable arm, etc...)

I know somone mentioned that I was making a lot of assumptions on how such a system would work. That is true. Since there is no system like this, all I can make is assumptions. He was saying on how the weight of a chassis does not necessarily dictate the size of the hardpoints, and that might be true to some extent. Overall though, bigger heavier mechs would have by their nature less restrictions on weapon hardpoints. I still feel the rift between weight classes would grow wider.

The only way I can see a hardpoint size limitation system working, is if community warfare was implemented in such a way that like tonnage mechs were put against each other depending on the game type and drop. Even then, I am uncertain that would be the best idea too. It is just that I could see that helping.

[Edson Drake]

I wouldn't mind seeing as it worked in MW4, but there would be surely a lot of whine from light players not being able to mount PPCs anymore, or any other big ballistic.

For heavies/assaults it wouldn't make a difference, unless PGI changed the roles of the heavy/assault mechs(not allowing more than 2 PPCs slots or whatever).

[Acid Phase]

Edson Drake, on 29 May 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind seeing as it worked in MW4, but there would be surely a lot of whine from light players not being able to mount PPCs anymore, or any other big ballistic.

For heavies/assaults it wouldn't make a difference, unless PGI changed the roles of the heavy/assault mechs(not allowing more than 2 PPCs slots or whatever).

This!!

Edited by Acid Phase, 29 May 2013 - 06:05 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Yanlowen Cage, on 29 May 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

even if srms or ssrms became the flavor of the month having sized hardpoints would limit there use. an 6 pack srm would not fit in a srm 2 slot. So indeed it does mitagate boat to some extent. And remember or reread my post as to PART of a larger fix and this game is broken in more then one way.

Why would you, for example, give the Centurion 3 SRM2-only capable hard points? So that he's screwed if he switches to Artemis and spends 3 tons on equipment he could have had for one if he was just allowed to carry an SRM6?

Would you actually limit the LRM15 launchers on a Trebuchet, Hunchback or Awesome to SRM4s and SRM2s?

And what would you do if the OP weapon of the month is a medium Laser? Temporarily ban Hunchback 4Ps?

What if the OP weapon of the month is an AC/20? A Wang or HBK-4G certainly can carry one, and a 50 ton mech trying to carry two... will still be suboptimal.

How do you distinguish the Missile Catapults that all have 2 LRM15s or 2 LRM20s launchers in a size-based system? (Especally since the one with the LRM20 - which logically should carry the largest launchers and most number of missile launchers, also is equipped with 2 Lasers while one of the LRM15s has no backup weapons at all!)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 29 May 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[Artgathan]

I think that the multi-hardpoint system (IE: the Hunchback 4P doesn't get a 6-Critical Energy Hardpoint, but instead 6 1-Critical Energy hardpoints in it's Right Torso) would be best. However I'm not a huge fan of reducing the amount of customization available to the player (that such a hardpoint system would enforce).

I'd rather see buffs to mechs that run loadouts similar to the mech's original loadout. For example, a Centurion CN9-A that carries 2 energy weapons, a LRM rack and a medium autocannon (AC/5 or 10, LBX/10, UAC/5) gets a bonus to it's refire rate, or a torso twist bonus, or a damage bonus. This doesn't invalidate custom builds, but it encourages people to run mechs built around certain roles.

Note that you could also break this system down into a "checklist" of bonuses: If the CN9-A carries two energy weapons, it gets +5% torso twist. If it carries an AC/5/10 it gets extra AC ammo per ton. If it carries an LRM rack it get -5% reload time.

[IceSerpent]

MustrumRidcully, on 29 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

Why would you, for example, give the Centurion 3 SRM2-only capable hard points? So that he's screwed if he switches to Artemis and spends 3 tons on equipment he could have had for one if he was just allowed to carry an SRM6?

Would you actually limit the LRM15 launchers on a Trebuchet, Hunchback or Awesome to SRM4s and SRM2s?

And what would you do if the OP weapon of the month is a medium Laser? Temporarily ban Hunchback 4Ps?

What if the OP weapon of the month is an AC/20? A Wang or HBK-4G certainly can carry one, and a 50 ton mech trying to carry two... will still be suboptimal.

How do you distinguish the Missile Catapults that all have 2 LRM15s or 2 LRM20s launchers in a size-based system? (Especally since the one with the LRM20 - which logically should carry the largest launchers and most number of missile launchers, also is equipped with 2 Lasers while one of the LRM15s has no backup weapons at all!)

I think you are coming at it from the wrong direction - you don't have to limit every single hardpoint even if you have an ability to do so. You only limit ones you deem necessary to be limited. And the only reason to do it is to provide more variety between variants. This idea has absolutely nothing to do with OP weapons or weapon balance in general.

[topgun505]

To the OP, I see your point, but honestly I still don't see this as a bad thing.

If anything I see hard point size limitations as two things.

1. A way to help differentiate a mech from another.
2. This can be a major tool the devs can use in the aspect of keeping the game in balance. There are literally thousands of mech variants in the BT universe. How difficult would it be to balance a new unit if it were wide open to customization abuse vs if you could only mod it slightly?

Edited by topgun505, 29 May 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

IceSerpent, on 29 May 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I think you are coming at it from the wrong direction - you don't have to limit every single hardpoint even if you have an ability to do so. You only limit ones you deem necessary to be limited. And the only reason to do it is to provide more variety between variants. This idea has absolutely nothing to do with OP weapons or weapon balance in general.

That's what you want from it. But some people bring up limitations of weapon hard points as a cure for balance problems.
I find it important to make it clear that this will just not work and doesn't replace actually balancing all the gear in the game.

If you trust hard points to do more than to act as a way to differentiate mech and mech variants, you will be disappointed.