159 replies to this topic

[Postumus]

The idea of implementing MechWarrior 4 style hardpoint sizes has been around as long as this game has, as a way to add some common sense limits to mech customization, encourage balanced loadouts, and curb some of the more egregious cheese builds.

The idea is that all weapons can be divided into roughly 3 categories: small, medium, and large. Small weapons could include things like small and medium lasers, machineguns, SSRM2, SRM2, LRM5, and maybe SRM4 or AC/2. Medium weapons could include large lasers, AC/5, SRM6, LRM 10, and maybe LRM 15. Large weapons would be PPCs, AC/10 and 20, LRM20, weapon systems that are very big (volume/crit slots) and very heavy.

Each mech would have a mixture of differently sized hardpoints, which is unique to each mech but would generally trend from smaller hardpoints at lower weight to larger hardpoints at higher weight.

An example of this system in action is the Hunchback. The H variant has one ballistic and 5 energy hardpoints in the current system. It's stock loadout is an AC/10, four medium lasers and one small laser. With sized hardpoints, that would be on large ballistic hardpoint and five small energy hardpoints. This would allow the exact same customization. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Stalker. The 4F variant comes stock with 2 LRM10s, 2 SRM6s, 2 Large Lasers, and 4 Medium lasers. This would translate into 4 medium missile hardpoints, four small energy hardpoints, and two medium energy hardpoints. This would restrict the customization, making the current PPC cheese builds impossible without any weapon nerfs. Because the mech is intended to have medium laser sized weapons in the arms, trying to cram
PPCs in will not work. An exception could be made to class Large Lasers in the same rank as PPCs, but this would still only allow two, and on the torso instead of arms.

TL;DR

This system would still allow a wide range of customization, while restricting the worst cheese. It would also breath new life into the current system of variants, by making the actual loadout of the stock variants a serious consideration, instead of just trash to be immediately rebuilt. Player would buy variants because they provide unique advantages and disadvantages, and in many cases there would no longer be one "best" variant for each mech. Finally, It would encourage less boating and more balanced builds. Most players agree that large weapon boating hurts the game, and under a size hardpoint system very few mechs would have the ability to carry more than two or three of the same large weapons (read "PPCs").

Edited by Postumus, 28 June 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Perhaps this would have been the best way to handle it from the beginning, but it's too late for that now.

Aside from the massive amount of time that would be required to implemented such a thing, it would send a ripple effect through the rest of the game requiring many more months of GUI redesign, weapons balancing and testing.

[Gremlich Johns]

Bhael Fire, on 28 June 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Aside from the massive amount of time that would be required to implemented such a thing, it would send a ripple effect through the rest of the game requiring many more months of GUI redesign, weapons balancing and testing.

no it wouldn't

[Bhael Fire]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 June 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

no it wouldn't

"No it wouldn't" what?

You don't think it would take a massive amount of time to implement? Are you serious? The game launches in two months and you want them to redesign the entire hardpoint system — a system that took them this long to get where they are now — along with redesigning the mechlab and GUI to accommodate said changes after they are just now finishing up UI 2.0?

No, sorry it's WAY too late to be making major design changes like that if you want to see this game launched before winter.

[Postumus]

The current hardpoint system is extremely simple. They haven't touched it since they added it back in the early mists of development time. Implementing a hardpoint size system is easy - you categorize the weapons, look at the stock variant loadouts, quantitize the hardpoints based on that loadout, and then add a couple lines of code in the mechlab to make sure that the weapon being slotted fits the size criteria, just like they check for weight, criticals, and type. Easy peasy.

What would take time is modifying the UI to show graphically what the hardpoints are, and to optimize the hardpoints on different variants. However, once size hardpoints are implemented, optimizing distribution across the variants should be alot less work than other kinds of balancing. As for graphical representation, this could be as simple as color coding, or even a text designation. Instead of just 0/3 - Energy, mechlab could display 0/1 - Energy, Large and 0/2 - Energy, Small, or something like that.

[Gaan Cathal]

Under your size system, what's the second energy hardpoint (not equivalent to a stock loadout weapon) on each arm of the AS7-RS? A 'large' size like the one already in the arm, or a 'small' for..some arbitrary reason?

[Bhael Fire]

Postumus, on 28 June 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Implementing a hardpoint size system is easy - you categorize the weapons, look at the stock variant loadouts, quantitize the hardpoints based on that loadout, and then add a couple lines of code in the mechlab to make sure that the weapon being slotted fits the size criteria, just like they check for weight, criticals, and type. Easy peasy.

There are many sub-systems that would be affected by such a drastic change. It's far from "easy peasy".

And besides, I was speaking holistically (i.e., design, programming, and art) when I said it would require a massive amount of time to implement. Much more time than they have if they want to release the game in September.

[Shakespeare]

Bhael Fire, on 28 June 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Perhaps this would have been the best way to handle it from the beginning, but it's too late for that now.

Aside from the massive amount of time that would be required to implemented such a thing, it would send a ripple effect through the rest of the game requiring many more months of GUI redesign, weapons balancing and testing.

I don't actually expect it would require per-weapon balancing to a large degree, but your argument is essentially correct - it's just too drastic a change, and despite the 'beta' tag, they won't do it. We've never seen a direct alteration to a game mechanic on that scale, for better or for worse, and we're sure as **** not going to see it now.
More's the pity.

[Nexus Omega]

I voted Other:

In Part I agree Hardpoints would be nice, I have a few questions for your example, it seems the HBK would be basically unable to change its load out significantly,
5 small energy, which could be SL/P ML/P flamer, so 5 weapon choices, and the ML is the best and only choice really.(Possible MPL)
1 Large Ballistic: Choice of 1 Large or? 2 medium? 3/4 small? <--- Is it restricted to Large weapons only?
How would it Differ from the 4G? It seems the 4G would get shafted, since it has less laser slots.

What if I want Large Lasers on my HBK? Can I combine small slots into bigger ones? or is it No Large lasers for me?

A little more info on what your Idea are would be good!

[Otto Cannon]

I'd like my mechs as flexible as possible so that there's at least a chance they'll still be worth using even after clan mechs arrive.

As for the pinpoint alpha issue, hardpoint restriction wouldn't solve it now and doesn't even begin to address the same problem with clan mechs. A good convergence fix like DocBach describes in his thread would properly solve pinpointing even after the clans arrive.

Hopefully there will be a stock mech only queue at some point in the future to cater for all those who want their mechs to have canon character for each chassis.

[Rocketlaunch]

Hard point sizes may solve things like 6 ppc stakers and Ac 40 jagers/cats, but it will not solve: Thunder Hawks (3 Gauss stock), Hunchback 2cs (2 ultra ac 20s stock), Devastators(2 ppcs and 2 gauss stock), Annihilators(4 lbx ac 10 stock ), Warhawks (4 clan ppcs stock), King Crabs (2 ac 20 stock) and Banes (10 ultra ac 2 stock).

[East Indy]

The more I think about it, the smarter it is for Piranha to adopt something that protects their 'Mech-release money tree.

Otherwise, why buy a new 'Mech, let alone a variant, when you've got the same thing from an earlier model that's been souped up? If there's no exclusivity — no, "Wow, I can finally use this combination of weapons" — Piranha's micro-transaction revenue will depend on the luxury purchasers. And they're not the majority of players.

As stated earlier, this won't eliminate high-alpha. But I think the lack of variety in matches is a separate problem, however closely related.

Edited by East Indy, 30 June 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Postumus]

Gaan Cathal, on 28 June 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

Under your size system, what's the second energy hardpoint (not equivalent to a stock loadout weapon) on each arm of the AS7-RS? A 'large' size like the one already in the arm, or a 'small' for..some arbitrary reason?

That's a tricky one, but either way it wouldn't be large.  Large laser is not in the same category as a PPC as far as I'm concerned.  The reason, besides size and tonnage, is that the PPC is the energy's big bad, the equivalent of an AC/10 or 20, and should be correspondingly scarce.  If you look at the numbers of PPC in stock loadouts, you will notice that they are mostly just sprinkled here and there, usually one per build, with mechs like the Awesome 8Q being the exception.  So to answer your question, it would probably be the middle, or medium tier energy hardpoint, which could fit large lasers and below.

Edited by Postumus, 30 June 2013 - 11:58 AM.

[Shakespeare]

Right. I would say, for the sake of not singling out PPC directly, and allowing for variation, keep the LPL in the same class as the PPC, with LL's and ERLLs as a middle size. Hell, even just two categories - small port, large port, would be enough.

But again, this would represent a complete reworking, and that's just NOT going to happen.

[Postumus]

Complete rework is such a loaded term. It seriously would not represent that huge of a time investment to just get the system in place. One possibility is to just make all hardpoints "Large" at first for a placeholder, and then start customizing the mechs.

Also, the idea to just have two hardpoint size tiers presents problems, mostly where to draw the line, and improbable upgrade situations. For example, in a two tiered system, AC/5 and maybe even AC/10 would could as "Small", and you could upgrade from a machinegun to one of those. This makes no sense, any autocannon is orders of magnitude larger than a machinegun.

Finally, hardpoint sizes are something that the devs have said that they are considering, so it really isn't outside the realm of possibility. Even if you personally think that it is improbable, cast a vote and show your interest, so that the devs can see that there is some demand for it.

[Zyllos]

My *personal* view on how restrictive hardpoint sizes should be implemented:

Any hardpoint size can equip 1 step size below it's current, meaning a Large hardpoint can equip both large and medium, while a Medium can equip a medium and small, while a Small can only equip a small.

This is my classification for weapon systems:

Small -

• Laser -
  
• Small Laser/Small Pulse Laser
  
• Medium Laser/Medium Pulse Laser
  
• Flamer
  
• Missile -
  
• LRM/5
  
• SRM/2
  
• SRM/4
  
• Ballistic -
  
• AC/2
  
• Machine Gun

Medium -

• Energy -
  
• Large Laser/Large Pulse Laser
  
• Missile -
  
• LRM/10
  
• LRM/15
  
• SRM/6
  
• Ballistic -
  
• AC/5
  
• UAC/5
  
• AC/10
  
• LBX/10

Large -

• Energy -
  
• PPC/ERPPC
  
• Missile -
  
• LRM/20
  
• Ballistic -
  
• AC/20
  
• Gauss Rifle

What this does is allow some mechs that normally have Small hardpoints to have a few Medium hardpoints and so on with Medium to Large without breaking balance.

The HBK-4P would be a good example. The hunch would have 3 Medium Energy and 3 Small Energy hardpoints, thus allowing a range from 3 Small Lasers to 3 Large Lasers and 3 Medium Lasers.

It would allow some of the variants with less play time to have one of it's hardpoints also upgraded.

It allows for some degree of variability within the same variant due to allowing for small sized weapons to be equipped to increase tonnage in engine, or better variants in the same class (normal Lasers to Pulse Lasers), or armor, ect.

This also allows PGI to control the amount of boated equipment in locations by enforcing weapons of a certain size to be taken or not used at all.

Either way, however PGI decides to implement such a system, if they do indeed go ahead with the change, I think it will lead to better gameplay.

I personally think this is one of the 4 fundamental changes needed in this game. The other three is heat fixes, tonnage limits, and convergence changes.

[East Indy]

One option to consider would be allowing each 'Mech to "upgrade" one hardpoint by a single tier — so small to medium, medium to large.

Other than that, I'm all for this. I just saw a Trebuchet with three PPCs. My team beat his, but come on; this game's better than that.

[Mackman]

I used to be extremely against a move like this, until I realized that the game is actually much more fun when you can run something that doesn't boat PPC's and not feel as though you're handicaping yourself. Even if the Dev's go way over-the-top on heat balancing, I doubt it's going to make much of a difference in the meta-game: It'll probably just switch to dual-guass builds, or two PPC/1 gauss (both of which already exist, but would become much more prevalant as a replacement for 4+ PPC's).

I'd be fine with this. It'd probably impact one of my favorite builds (AC/20 treb ftw!), but it'd make using the rest of my mechs much more fun.

[Thuraash]

Thank you for doing this, Postumous. Great idea, to come up with an overall tally for support.

I've got a much simpler vision for hardpoint sizes, though. Three tiers could work, but I think it's doing too much. The main goal, to me, is to use heavy weapon capability as a differentiator between variants, and to limit how many heavy weapons individual 'mechs can carry.

This is literally the whole system: You create just TWO types of hardpoints: "Heavy" and "Standard." The "Heavy" weapons are: AC/20s, Gauss Rifles, and PPCs/ERPPCs.

I feel that this would be relatively easy for PGI to implement, since, in principal, all they have to do is create two new hardpoint types: Heavy Energy, and Heavy Ballistic. You re-assign PPCs, ERPPCs, AC/20s, and Gauss to the new types. You allow all other weapons to be mounted in the new types (which might be complicated, depending upon how their back-end works... I have no idea if that would be an issue).

I'm not messing with missiles because they're better addressed through improving how the missile tube system works to prohibit using the same tubes for multiple weapon systems at once (weapons "claim" the tubes for the duration of their recycle time), but you COULD simply throw LRM15s and 20s into the same bin if you wanted to.

The system is minimally intrusive. It allows you to build your 'mech however you want... BUT... Heavy hardpoints are rare, and hard to come by, and you don't get the benefit of them unless the 'mech made the requisite design sacrifices to accomodate them. Basically, you track the stock loadouts with limited exceptions for balance purposes, but adhere to the following rule:

"If the 'mech looks like it can mount a heavy weapon in that component, then it can. If it doesn't, then it can't."

This may seem arbitrary or fluffy, but it's supported by a very specific gameplay reason: if it looks like the 'mech can mount a heavy weapon there, then the design has made the sacrifices necessary to balance the weapon being there by having a large component/large weapon mesh/etc. It also puts weapons where you would expect them to be (counterpoint: moving BJ-3 PPCs into the side torsos for convergence, protection, and to allow you to strip arm armor... that's ********!).

Here's a little chart of how that might pan out. It lists ALL the heavy hardpoints available across all current 'mechs. Note that many variants are missing. They don't get heavy hardpoint capabilities. Typically, they are designed for different weapon configurations that don't need heavy weapons, and are balanced by having more hardpoints, smaller hitboxes, different types of hardpoints, or other advantages.


What do you lot think? Any suggestions on how to improve the hardpoint distribution?

I've created a thread to discuss it in detail here, but I feel that this page would be a much better forum for all of us to throw our ideas up, so PGI has a comprehensive thread to look to, should they seek feedback.


Thanks for creating the thread, Postumous! Also, special thanks to PGI for making a ******* awesome game!

Edit: Mackman: I completely agree. People say this would kill diversity. By getting rid of the crazy sandbox, you open a world of new possibilities. Dozens of variants would no longer be redundant. Many others would have their rightful niche back. Yes, individual variants would be more constrained in their capabilities, but by disallowing people from building their "perfect" 'mechs, you force them to choose between a slightly more limited, but much vaster array of more closely matched and better balanced options, each with unique strengths and weaknesses that the others do not possess. THAT is diversity!

Edited by Thuraash, 01 July 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Postumus]

Zyllos, that's a great table, more or less what I imagined when breaking down the weapons into a three tier system. I don't see why, for example, a hardpoint rated as large shouldn't be able to fit anything below it, however. For me the point was more to restrict over the top upgrading of hardpoints from their stock tier. Restricting downgrading as well might kill the variety of combinations too much, but I could be persuaded either way, and it's an option for the devs to look at.

What would be really cool is if someone could do up a spreadsheet showing what hardpoints each variant would have based on stock loadout, so that people could get an idea of what this type of system would and wouldn't do to their ability to customize mechs.

Edit:

Thuraash, a two tier system would accomplish a reduction in heavy weapon boating, which is one of the main goals of implementing hardpoint sizes. The reason I chose a three tier system in my proposal is that it would not require significantly more programming and design to implement vs. a two tiered system, and all of the game's weapons are already divided into a roughly three tiered size system anyways. Zyllos' post above nailed the division perfectly, and when you look at the groupings you can see the logic to it.

Finally, three tiers gives even more control to the devs to guarantee a quality play experience. For example, in a two tiered system Large lasers would fall into the first, or non-heavy tier. If players were suddenly unable to boat only PPCs tomorrow, the LL would be the 100% guaranteed replacement. And from a mechbuilding perspective, it doesn't make sense to be able to arbitrarily upgrade from a small to a large laser. Granted, the medium energy hardpoints that a large laser uses would be more common that the large energy points for PPCs, but the point is that there isn't just one way to boat, and a more comprehensive solution could give better results.

Edited by Postumus, 01 July 2013 - 06:25 PM.