9 replies to this topic

[Chairman Meow]

I posted this as a shorter version in another post but figured I'd elaborate on it a bit more.

The idea is to keep the current hardpoint system but adding tradeoffs for switching the default weapon in that slot for something else.

Missiles kinda do that already if you have too few tubes to fire the whole volley of a larger rack.
That could be use the other way around by decreasing the cycle time if you use smaller racks.

Now doing that for other weapons could involve heat, range and convergence changes.

Let's say you mount a PPC (8 heat) in a Hardpoint that is used for a ML (4 heat) on that variant's default loadout.

You'd get a heat generation of 8*1.5 and would end up at 12.

Doing the same in a SL (2 heat) slot would give you 8*1.75 and you end up at 14 heat.

With a LL (7 heat) slot 8*1.125 and you end up at 9 heat.

Note that these are just examples with super simple math and I am sure someone with a bit more time can run the numbers with a more fitting system.

It could be further tweaked by making heatsinks in the same location as that hardpoint reduce that effect by a small amount.

Same would go for ballistic and maybe missile hardpoints and could work the other way around for less heat generating weapons in high heat hardpoints.

Furthermore the convergence should be influenced depending on projectile speed in a similar way heat is so you suffer a slight "accuracy" hit due to those changes.


This change would make standard variants more viable since they would represent the perfectly tuned version of that mech.

I figure Omni-Mechs won't work much different than current variants with the exception that you buy the base chassis for a high price and can than switch between the loadouts for a one time fee or they give us universal hard points but I kinda doubt that.

System would need to be adjusted for that I guess.

As I said this is just a rough idea and you guys will probably have more to add.
Feedback is welcome, if you didn't bother to read the post, don't bother to reply.

[AnnoyingCat]

I like my ac20 to be where a mg should be

[Livewyr]

I think what you might need is a mode for Stock mechs only.

[OneEyed Jack]

AnnoyingCat, on 29 May 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I like my ac20 to be where a mg should be

"Should" is a purely subject definition.

The idea is ludicrous. By that train of thought, ever variant that's not the original variant should suffer massive penalties as well. let's take a look at the stock HBK-4P. Lasers in the hunch? The original HB off the line didn't have lasers in the hunch. Not even one! By golly, if that thing fires at all it should simply explode!

Oh, yeah, maybe it was modified.....

Changing the weapons in a mech doesn't simply mean they unbolt the old one and bolt in a new one in the same place. Assume the necessary modifications were made. They don't charge you for it, or make you wait because

• People would flip out if they had to pay every time they wanted to alter the loadout of a mech, especially while experimenting to find a loadout they like. This especially includes the short-sighted twits who have suggested it.
  
• It's not a real-time game. Yes, the timeline is at least planned to continue following real-time, but if game-play was real-time, you'd be waiting a lot longer between matches than even the most devoted fan would put up with.

[Karr285]

I would love to see how this would work, sadly we arnt allowed to test possible fixes, only fixes PGI deems acceptable (and we all trust their balance team )

[BarHaid]

I know that people howl and moan about heat, and this would make them even more incensed. But I like it! The fluff is full of mechwarriors dealing with recalcitrant modifications and jury-rigged repairs. Forcing us to deal with heat trade-offs when we customize our load-outs would make for a more nuanced build, I think.

Edit: This should go into the suggestion forum as well!

Edited by BarHaid, 29 May 2013 - 07:28 AM.

[Chairman Meow]

BarHaid, on 29 May 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

I know that people howl and moan about heat, and this would make them even more incensed. But I like it! The fluff is full of mechwarriors dealing with recalcitrant modifications and jury-rigged repairs. Forcing us to deal with heat trade-offs when we customize our load-outs would make for a more nuanced build, I think.

Edit: This should go into the suggestion forum as well!

Crossposted it here now: http://mwomercs.com/...ing-hardpoints/

And as you pointed out I also felt like this would bring it closer to the bt fluff.

[Sprouticus]

too complicated. Any solution would need to be fairly straight forward (which is why many of us have supported mount point size limits for the last year plus.

Yes it is similar to MW4. That does not make it a bad idea.

[Cyke]

OneEyed Jack, on 29 May 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

People would flip out if they had to pay every time they wanted to alter the loadout of a mech, especially while experimenting to find a loadout they like. This especially includes the short-sighted twits who have suggested it.

• It's not a real-time game. Yes, the timeline is at least planned to continue following real-time, but if game-play was real-time, you'd be waiting a lot longer between matches than even the most devoted fan would put up with.
  
  
  

Nice, I like that you pointed this out.

If the game was real time and followed how things worked in the universe that's used as the game's setting? It'd be insane.

With the kind of modifications we make (removing weapons and mounting much bigger ones, changing the fusion engine, rebuilding the skeleton from new materials etc) it would almost be like factory-building a new 'Mech each time.
The BattleTech Strategic Operations book probably can give precise numbers, but generally the stuff that we usually do for free in seconds would cost hundreds of thousands (in addition to parts costs).. and would take weeks or even months in a refitting factory!


.
Anyway, back on topic.
Regarding softcaps or penalties on hardpoints, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think the penalties should be that severe.
If mounting an "oversized" weapon on a hardpoint, penalties could perhaps slightly more heat or increased cycle time, nothing more. I'm talking about just 5-10% more heat or slowed cycle times here, just something to add a bit more nuance to the different chassis and variants in the game.

Edited by Cyke, 29 May 2013 - 09:11 AM.

[AnnoyingCat]

OneEyed Jack, on 29 May 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

"Should" is a purely subject definition.

The idea is ludicrous. By that train of thought, ever variant that's not the original variant should suffer massive penalties as well. let's take a look at the stock HBK-4P. Lasers in the hunch? The original HB off the line didn't have lasers in the hunch. Not even one! By golly, if that thing fires at all it should simply explode!

Oh, yeah, maybe it was modified.....

Changing the weapons in a mech doesn't simply mean they unbolt the old one and bolt in a new one in the same place. Assume the necessary modifications were made. They don't charge you for it, or make you wait because

• People would flip out if they had to pay every time they wanted to alter the loadout of a mech, especially while experimenting to find a loadout they like. This especially includes the short-sighted twits who have suggested it.
  
• It's not a real-time game. Yes, the timeline is at least planned to continue following real-time, but if game-play was real-time, you'd be waiting a lot longer between matches than even the most devoted fan would put up with.

Pardon?