17 replies to this topic

[AntiCitizenJuan]

In the high alpha, big guns or nothing world of MW:O, an idea frequently thrown around and then poorly elaborated upon and dismissed by others are Hardpoint Sizes.

The Concept: Certain weapon slots are only capable of fitting certain sized weaponry.

What does this do for the game?

This creates the ability for the developers to balance each variant of each chassis individually.
Some mechs which are classified by the community as blatantly inferior, could find a new life as variants capable of doing what their counterparts could not.

Weapon Size Classifications: These are my ideal classifications for weaponry.
So if you have a "Light Energy Hardpoint" in your mechs arm, it could only outfit the energy weaponry categorized under the "Light" section. Also, a Mech with, for example, a "Heavy Missile Hardpoint" would be able to outfit Light, Medium, and Heavy Missile weaponry.

Light Weaponry
Machine Gun
AC/2
TAG
Small Laser
Small Pulse Laser
Flamer
SRM2
SRM4
Streak SRM2
NARC
LRM5

Medium Weaponry
AC/5
AC/10
LB 10-X AC
Medium Laser
Medium Pulse Laser
Large Laser
Large Pulse Laser
ER Large Laser
SRM6
LRM10
LRM15

Heavy Weaponry
AC/20
Gauss Rifle
PPC
ER PPC
LRM 20

For example: the Catapult K2's machine gun ports, with Hardpoint Size restrictions, could not outfit anything larger than what would be considered to fit into a "Light Ballistic Hardpoint".

Let's keep up with the example being the Catapult K2.
The Stock K2's weaponry consists of 2 PPC's, 2 Medium Lasers, 2 Machine Guns.
What we have now is essentially 4 Energy, 2 Ballistic slots capable of fitting all Energy and Ballistic armaments in the game. Which usually means it's run as a 4PPC boat or AC/40 boat.
Not exactly the peak of customization, when given all options, people will just run the most powerful weapons they can, even if the variant they're piloting was absolutely not known to do so within the lore of Battletech.

If the K2 had Hardpoint Sizes, it must coincide with the lore, stock variant of the chassis.
So the K2 would have 2 Heavy Energy Hardpoints, 2 Medium Energy Hardpoints, 2 Light Ballistic Hardpoints.

What does this mean for our precious K2? It becomes the only catapult capable of outfitting PPCs, due to the two very large ear cannons not present on any other variant.

Arguments Against Hardpoint Sizes:

"The game is fine!"
- No it isn't. When the majority of mechs in competitive and high elo play are running exclusively heavy weaponry, you know the game is borked.

"Hardpoint Sizes will kill customization!"
- No they wont. If anything the concept can highlight the use of unused variants. Remember the last time you saw a Stalker 3H, let alone one that performed outstandingly? An Awesome 8V? How about a Commando 3A? Hunchback 4J?

By individually assigning Hardpoint Sizes you can limit the absurd strengths of some mechs (Here's looking at you Stalker 3F) and at the same time boost the capabilities of lesser used variants, even providing each variant of a chassis with a more unique and defined role on the battlefield.


Example: The Stalker 4N. There is literally no reason to take it over any other Stalker.
Through Hardpoint Sizes, a seemingly useless mech like the 4N can be given a unique benefit over its counterparts. The 4N, for example, may be the only Stalker containing 3 Heavy Energy Hardpoints, essentially making it the only Stalker capable of outfitting 3 PPC's. Giving it a unique role amongst the other Stalkers which may only have 2 Heavy Energy Hardpoints.


TL;DR: Read the post you lazy herb.

Also* This would coincide with other gameplay changes, this is not a one size fits all answer.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 23 June 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[FupDup]

Honestly, I think that sized hardpoints, if ever used, should just be based on critical slots instead of "light, medium, large, etc." For instance, a Catapult K2 would get 3-4 slots in each arm for energy weapons (as a single, solid hardpoint). You could throw in 2 LL, 4 ML, 1 PPC + 1 ML, etc.

Note that this would still allow for multiple sized hardpoints per body part instead of just a single clump. For instance, maybe one Jenner variant (probably the D) might get 2 hardpoints per arm, each rated at 1 slot (only small weapons like ML). A different variant (probably the K, because it gets fewer missiles than the D) might get a single hardpoint per arm, rated at 2 slots (allows for LL and LPL, or 2 smaller weapons like ML).

Edited by FupDup, 23 June 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Deathlike]

All I can say is, hardpoint sizes are OK, BUT, not as a unilateral move.

I hear the complaints about how the MG in a K2 should NEVER house an AC20.. which I think that is wrong. If you wanted to reduce AC20 K2s, then having "floating" hardpoint sizes would be better... sure the K2 would carry an AC20, but only 1. You would still provide customization, but you don't "limit" or condemn weapons from a hardpoint.

I don't have a problem with 2 PPC Jenners... but sometimes that build is part of the evergrowing PPC/Gauss/Alpha meta. I would still allow a PPC on it, but just 1. That way it would not "break" the "immersiveness" some of you seem to crave.

I would only consider the idea ONLY for the purposes of balance, but outright reduction in hardpoint sizes will simply be voted down by me. Only "floating" hardpoint sizes will still allow people to do stuff that is completely legal in terms of mech building, but also reduce the mega-boating of large weaponry.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 23 June 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

All I can say is, hardpoint sizes are OK, BUT, not as a unilateral move.

I hear the complaints about how the MG in a K2 should NEVER house an AC20.. which I think that is wrong. If you wanted to reduce AC20 K2s, then having "floating" hardpoint sizes would be better... sure the K2 would carry an AC20, but only 1. You would still provide customization, but you don't "limit" or condemn weapons from a hardpoint.

I don't have a problem with 2 PPC Jenners... but sometimes that build is part of the evergrowing PPC/Gauss/Alpha meta. I would still allow a PPC on it, but just 1. That way it would not "break" the "immersiveness" some of you seem to crave.

I would only consider the idea ONLY for the purposes of balance, but outright reduction in hardpoint sizes will simply be voted down by me. Only "floating" hardpoint sizes will still allow people to do stuff that is completely legal in terms of mech building, but also reduce the mega-boating of large weaponry.

By "floating" do you mean being able to move to any location on the body and combine/split in various combinations? For instance, being able to shove a K2's ballistics in the arms or moving the arm lasers to the torso?

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 23 June 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

By "floating" do you mean being able to move to any location on the body and combine/split in various combinations? For instance, being able to shove a K2's ballistics in the arms or moving the arm lasers to the torso?

No... although it would be cool but would break balance.

I'm talking about "floating" as in.. the first slot you use a "heavy" weapon would be consumed. Think of it like FF/Endo.

You can put the AC20 in EITHER torso (since both torsos can use a ballistic weapon), but you cannot put in TWO AC20s in both torsos. That is the idea.

[Profiteer]

The main argument I hear against hard-point restrictions is that it will limit customization.

Well, we have no restrictions right now, and look around... PPC/Gauss or go home.

I think hard-point restrictions would open the game up and lead to a better variety of builds (maybe even some brawling ).

Right now when a new mech comes out I'm looking for: small hit-boxes, high weapon mounts, can it fit 3-4 PPCs and/or gauss. It's getting old.

[Coralld]

The OPs idea is similar to my own and I would agree it would bring back a lot of the balance that was lost, and with the number of variants for each chassis you would actually see variety and mechs that were considered redundant or inferior would have a purpose.

[MasterErrant]

the hardpoints need resone but this is too simplistic. htey just need to assign a number of slots to any given HP and we shouild be able to put in whatever fits. even mulitple weaopns.
hardpoints limited to a weapon type aren't really out of concept. if you use all the optional rules. but you offering in no only the twentieth repeat of this concept but is obviously targeted on PPCs which aren't the problem

[Nauht]

It will kill customisation - only if PGI doesn't introduce comparable weapons for the smaller slots.

For instance light mechs should fit a snub nose ppc or light GR, which have appropriate range/heat penalties to them.

But everyone agrees that boating is a problem and there are boating and overheat penalties coming. Let's see if those will reduce boating to some degree.

[Coralld]

MasterErrant, on 23 June 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

the hardpoints need resone but this is too simplistic. htey just need to assign a number of slots to any given HP and we shouild be able to put in whatever fits. even mulitple weaopns.
hardpoints limited to a weapon type aren't really out of concept. if you use all the optional rules. but you offering in no only the twentieth repeat of this concept but is obviously targeted on PPCs which aren't the problem

If I am understanding you correctly, that's exactly what MW4 had, look how that turned out.

Nauht, on 23 June 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

It will kill customisation - only if PGI doesn't introduce comparable weapons for the smaller slots.

For instance light mechs should fit a snub nose ppc or light GR, which have appropriate range/heat penalties to them.

But everyone agrees that boating is a problem and there are boating and overheat penalties coming. Let's see if those will reduce boating to some degree.

Boating isant the problem, its excessive boating of the "heavy" weapons that are the problem.

I will admit though, I do like the Light Gauss Rifle.

[AnnoyingCat]

but i like it when i can slap an ac20 to a mg slot

[Coralld]

AnnoyingCat, on 23 June 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

but i like it when i can slap an ac20 to a mg slot

We know you and people like you do, but it makes no sense, its like trying to fire a 50cal rifle round through a 9mil pistol. Or mounting 1,000lb bomb on a weapon pylon that was meant and only capable of holding a 100lb bomb.

Edited by Coralld, 23 June 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[AnnoyingCat]

Coralld, on 23 June 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

We know you and people like you do, but it makes no sense, its like trying to fire a 50cal rifle round through a 9mil pistol. Or mounting 1,000lb bond on a weapon pylon that was meant and only capable of holding a 100lb bomb.

one day, i will fire a 50cal out of a 9mm, one day

[Nauht]

Coralld, on 23 June 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

We know you and people like you do, but it makes no sense, its like trying to fire a 50cal rifle round through a 9mil pistol. Or mounting 1,000lb bomb on a weapon pylon that was meant and only capable of holding a 100lb bomb.

That 50 cal has its own barrel and is a self contained unit. So is basically every weapon.

Nearly every fighting vehicle can be customised to carry weapons the situation calls for. It's just a matter of elbow grease for the ground crew. There are only a very few vehicles that were designed from the ground up to fit a particular weapon - the A-10 is the most obvious.

Totally irrelevant to a made up sf world but just thought I'd throw that out there.

[IceSerpent]

@OP: Just out of curiosity, why do you want to introduce light / medium / heavy parameter when we already have number of crits each weapon takes and can simply limit a hardpoint to a desired number of crits?

[AntiCitizenJuan]

IceSerpent, on 23 June 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

@OP: Just out of curiosity, why do you want to introduce light / medium / heavy parameter when we already have number of crits each weapon takes and can simply limit a hardpoint to a desired number of crits?

Because I would hardly call having hardpoints limited by critical space "simple"

[Coralld]

Nauht, on 23 June 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

That 50 cal has its own barrel and is a self contained unit. So is basically every weapon.

Nearly every fighting vehicle can be customised to carry weapons the situation calls for. It's just a matter of elbow grease for the ground crew. There are only a very few vehicles that were designed from the ground up to fit a particular weapon - the A-10 is the most obvious.

Totally irrelevant to a made up sf world but just thought I'd throw that out there.

True, but the 50cal through a 9mm pistol was more of a military version of the saying "Putting a square peg through a round hole."
Yes and no, many aircraft can only mount up a specific weapon load to the pylon, given its location, the weight the aircraft can carry, and so on and so forth. Overall this is nit picking and semantics, as you said, this has no bearing on a sf world. But you get what I was saying. square peg people, square peg.

Edited by Coralld, 23 June 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[Zyllos]

IGP, PGI's publisher, already has a solution in their other MechWarrior game, MechWarrior: Tactics.

What they do is enforce hardpoint limits by hardpoint numbers locations along with critical slot values.

That means is that a single hardpoint has a critical slot value assigned along with it. If a weapon of equal critical slot size or smaller is equipped in that location, all those critical slots are used up by the hardpoint, but only in terms of weapons. The other critical slots within that hardpoint can be utilized with support equipment like ammo, Ferro-Fiberous, Endo-Steel, heatsinks, ect.

Take a HBK-4G for example.

It would contain a single hardpoint in the Right Torso, with 10 critical slots. Thus, this means it can equip a single weapon with up to 10 critical hardpoints worth. The only difference is that in MW:T, that critical hardpoint number allows ANY weapon to be equipped there, only limiting it by critical slots worth. In MW:O, PGI could just limit the hardpoint to Ballistic weaponry.

The HBK-4H could have 1 Ballistic hardpoint with only 8 critical slots but with another 2 Energy hardpoints worth 1 critical slot each. That would allow the HBK-4H to equip maybe an AC/2, along with 2 Medium Pulse Lasers, or an LBX/10 with 1 Flamer and 1 Small Laser. But the HBK-4H could not equip, say 1 Large Laser or PPC because the 2 Energy hardpoints are only worth 1 critical slot each, thus only 1 critical slot Energy weapons can be equipped.

The Stalkers could be fixed as per the OP's example, by giving some of the less used variants locations that allow for 1 Energy hardpoint that is worth 3 critical slots, thus allowing them to equip PPCs while the others would have 3 Energy hardpoints only worth 2 critical slots only allowing Small/Medium/Large Lasers.

This system allows for a lot of customization while limiting certain mechs to their specific builds and roles.

Look at the AWS-8Q. It could be one of the few mechs in the game that would have 3 Energy hardpoints worth 3 critical slots each, thus allowing 3 PPCs to be equipped. That would bring some usefulness back to the Awesome mech, it being the only mech to boat the PPCs. Especially when tonnage limits get implemented.

Edited by Zyllos, 23 June 2013 - 06:27 PM.