159 replies to this topic

[Postumus]

Currently, the only difference between most variants of a mech are raw hardpoint numbers and minor differences in torso twist/pitch. The only significantly different variants are those that lose and actuator to fit an AC.20, or those with a much larger stock engine, or maybe jumpjets. The result is that, for the majority of mechs, weapon loadouts can be duplicated across all of the mechs, and often the most efficient build does not change from variant to variant. The Centurion is a good example - All of the available variants besides the Wang have at least two missile hardpoints and a couple lasers. As a result, the most common Centurion build is 2x or 3x SRM6, and 2-4 medium lasers, hardly any variation. The Stalker is even worse - 4/6 variants have at least 4 energy and 4 missile hardpoints, and the loadouts have become extremely stagnant: 4x PPC, 6x LL, 4-5 SRM6 + 5-6 ML, or 4-5 LRMs and ML.

Something extra is needed to differentiate the variants, beyond the little turning and torso movement quirks being added very slowly. Hardpoint sizes would be a very effective way to put the variation back in variants, and in my mind represents the optimum middle grounds between free for all customization and stock only builds.

[skullman86]

Only way to achieve weight class balance is to fortify variant/chassis roles with hardpoint sizes. All the other ideas floating around the forums are great for overall gameplay balance, but none of them address the homogenization of builds (PPCs, AC/20, and gauss) and the loss of defined roles within weight classes.

What I think the starting sizes for hardpoints should be:

Energy- 2 critical slots per hardpoint

Ballistic- 4 critical slots per hardpoint

Missile- 3 critical slots per hardpoint

That means mechs get that much usable critical space for each hardpoint they have and the space stacks to allow for heavier weapons where a mech has more hardpoints. These numbers would be used across the board and mechs with specific roles or stock loadouts that do not function properly with these numbers (there are a handful out there) would be given quirks to increase or decrease the base sizes of their hardpoints.

EX: Stalkers have 2 energy hardpoints in each arm (4 crits total in each arm) - that would be enough room for two large lasers or two of anything smaller, or a PPC and medium laser (or something of comparable size). This change takes away the stalker's (and pretty much every other assault's) ability to run the heavy PPC builds that it has become known for. The Awesome could be given a 3 crit slot per hardpoint quirk to improve its energy boating ability, making it the only assault chassis capable of carrying anywhere from 2 to 6 PPCs at a time depending on the variant.

EX: The CTF-3d would lose its ability to boat PPCs because it only has single energy hardpoints in each component (forcing them to jump snipe with LLs). The CTF-1x would be able to load a PPC in its right arm, and the jump sniping ability that the 3d lost would be passed down to the lighter Quickdraw that would be able to pack a PPC in its right torso.

EX: Most of the dragon variants have 2 energy hardpoints in their left arm, making them one of the few heavies able to carry PPCs. That change would increase their usefulness.

There are quite a lot of positive (IMO) balance shifts that would occur if these numbers were used. There are also some mechs that don't quite work with this system, but the level of cheese in this game would drop like a rock if this was implemented.

Potential problem mechs that I can think of off the top of my head:

• JM6-DD: 4 critical slots x 3 ballistic hardpoints = Dual AC/20s HNNNNNNG
  
• CPLT-K2: Needs another energy hardpoint in the arms to carry PPCs (2 crits per hardpoint) and to give it an edge over the Firebrand who has a very samey, but all around better layout IMO.
  
• Awesomes need a 3 critical slot per hardpoint quirk to effectively dominate the energy boating role (like they are supposed to)
  
• HGN 733p needs an additional energy hardpoint in the left arm to allow double PPCs. It's an energy variant, so it should be given some special attention to better define its role
  
• HBK-4H and Atlases would need increases ballistics hardpoint sizes or more hardpoints so they can carry their stock weapons etc.

Edited by skullman86, 17 July 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

skullman86, on 13 July 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Only way to achieve weight class balance is to fortify variant/chassis roles with hardpoint sizes. All the other ideas floating around the forums are great for overall gameplay balance, but none of them address the homogenization of builds (PPCs, AC/20, and gauss) and the loss of defined roles within weight classes.

What I think the starting base sizes for hardpoints should be:

Energy- 2 critical slots per hardpoint

Ballistic- 4 critical slots per hardpoint

Missile- 3 critical slots per hardpoint

That means mechs get that much usable critical space for each hardpoint they have and the space stacks to allow for heavier weapons where a mech has more hardpoints. These numbers would be used across the board and mechs with specific roles or stock loadouts that do not function properly with these numbers (there are a handful out there) would be given quirks to increase or decrease the base sizes of their hardpoints.

EX: Stalkers have 2 energy hardpoints in each arm (4 crits total in each arm) - that would be enough room for two large lasers or two of anything smaller, or a PPC and medium laser (or something of comparable size). This change takes away the stalker's (and pretty much every other assault's) ability to run the heavy PPC builds that is has come to be known for. The Awesome could be given a 3 crit slot per hardpoint quirk to improve its energy boating ability, making it the only assault chassis capable of carrying anywhere from 2 to 6 PPCs at a time depending on the variant.

EX: The CTF-3d would lose its ability to boat PPCs because it only has single energy hardpoints in each component (forcing them to jump snipe with LLs). The CTF-1x would be able to load a PPC in its right arm, and the jump sniping ability that the 3d lost would be passed down to the lighter Quickdraw that would be able to pack a PPC in its right torso.

EX: Most of the dragon variants have 2 energy hardpoints in their left arm, making them one of the few heavies able to carry PPCs. That change would increase their usefulness.

There are quite a lot of positive (IMO) balance shifts that would occur if these numbers were used. There are also some mechs that don't quite work with this system, but the level of cheese in this game would drop like a rock if this was implemented.

Potential problem mechs that I can think of off the top of my head:

• JM6-DD: 4 critical slots x 3 ballistic hardpoints = Dual AC/20s HNNNNNNG
  
• CPLT-K2: Needs another energy hardpoint in the arms to carry PPCs (2 crits per hardpoint) and to give it an edge over the Firebrand who has a very samey, but all around better layout IMO.
  
• Awesomes need a 3 critical slot per hardpoint quirk to effectively dominate the energy boating role (like they are supposed to)
  
• HGN 733p needs an additional energy hardpoint in the left arm to allow double PPCs. It's an energy variant, so it should be given some special attention to better define its role
  
• HBK-4H and Atlases would need increases ballistics hardpoint sizes or more hardpoints so they can carry their stock weapons etc.

Well and sound...although I think that the hardpoint size could be dynamical too... so that the Hunchback 4H is able to carry a AC 10 without any option for Gauss, AC 20 or Double AC5.

As a alternative you can allow the 4H to carry 2 leight weight ballistic slots - each give 4 criticals and 6tons.
So the Hunch 4H is able to carry 2 ballistic weapons up to 12tons -> LBX, Ultra 5, AC 5 + MG or 2 AC 2 or AC 10.

Howerver reduced global values - more mech specific values is the way to go...

[Big Giant Head]

skullman86, on 13 July 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Only way to achieve weight class balance is to fortify variant/chassis roles with hardpoint sizes. All the other ideas floating around the forums are great for overall gameplay balance, but none of them address the homogenization of builds (PPCs, AC/20, and gauss) and the loss of defined roles within weight classes.

What I think the starting base sizes for hardpoints should be:

Energy- 2 critical slots per hardpoint

Ballistic- 4 critical slots per hardpoint

Missile- 3 critical slots per hardpoint

That means mechs get that much usable critical space for each hardpoint they have and the space stacks to allow for heavier weapons where a mech has more hardpoints. These numbers would be used across the board and mechs with specific roles or stock loadouts that do not function properly with these numbers (there are a handful out there) would be given quirks to increase or decrease the base sizes of their hardpoints.

EX: Stalkers have 2 energy hardpoints in each arm (4 crits total in each arm) - that would be enough room for two large lasers or two of anything smaller, or a PPC and medium laser (or something of comparable size). This change takes away the stalker's (and pretty much every other assault's) ability to run the heavy PPC builds that is has come to be known for. The Awesome could be given a 3 crit slot per hardpoint quirk to improve its energy boating ability, making it the only assault chassis capable of carrying anywhere from 2 to 6 PPCs at a time depending on the variant.

EX: The CTF-3d would lose its ability to boat PPCs because it only has single energy hardpoints in each component (forcing them to jump snipe with LLs). The CTF-1x would be able to load a PPC in its right arm, and the jump sniping ability that the 3d lost would be passed down to the lighter Quickdraw that would be able to pack a PPC in its right torso.

EX: Most of the dragon variants have 2 energy hardpoints in their left arm, making them one of the few heavies able to carry PPCs. That change would increase their usefulness.

There are quite a lot of positive (IMO) balance shifts that would occur if these numbers were used. There are also some mechs that don't quite work with this system, but the level of cheese in this game would drop like a rock if this was implemented.

Potential problem mechs that I can think of off the top of my head:

• JM6-DD: 4 critical slots x 3 ballistic hardpoints = Dual AC/20s HNNNNNNG
  
• CPLT-K2: Needs another energy hardpoint in the arms to carry PPCs (2 crits per hardpoint) and to give it an edge over the Firebrand who has a very samey, but all around better layout IMO.
  
• Awesomes need a 3 critical slot per hardpoint quirk to effectively dominate the energy boating role (like they are supposed to)
  
• HGN 733p needs an additional energy hardpoint in the left arm to allow double PPCs. It's an energy variant, so it should be given some special attention to better define its role
  
• HBK-4H and Atlases would need increases ballistics hardpoint sizes or more hardpoints so they can carry their stock weapons etc.

I totaly support the idea
I actually had the same only in my case it was 1 crit for missile segment 2 for energy and 3 for ballistics
But the more I think, I realize this could be handled a lot easier.

Instead of putting hardpoint slots over-top critical slots put the in some kind of sub-menu in mechlab.
So when you open "Loadout", there should be two new windows

One is for weapon crit slots (similar to MW4), second is crit slot we have now

And when you arrange all those weapons in hardpoint slots and press OK and once you press it, it switches you to second window
on the next window all those weapons fall into critical slots - each of their critical slot size remain.
And then from there you can start putting equipment

Edited by Big Giant Head, 15 July 2013 - 02:21 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

skullman86, on 13 July 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Potential problem mechs that I can think of off the top of my head:

• JM6-DD: 4 critical slots x 3 ballistic hardpoints = Dual AC/20s HNNNNNNG

It can be split:


In Jagermechs DD both arms, same goes for Dragon 5Ns right arm

skullman86, on 13 July 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Potential problem mechs that I can think of off the top of my head:

• Awesomes need a 3 critical slot per hardpoint quirk to effectively dominate the energy boating role (like they are supposed to)
  
• HBK-4H and Atlases would need increases ballistics hardpoint sizes or more hardpoints so they can carry their stock weapons etc.

Hunchie 4H



Awesome 8Q


Dont mind those black spaces just ignore them

Edited by Big Giant Head, 15 July 2013 - 02:31 AM.

[Ivanzypher]

For the love of god yes. I have been saying we need this since the Founders program first opened.

[Postumus]

As for number of crit slots per hardpoint, thats a neat idea, but I don't see that it fixes the problem any better than using tiered/sized hardpoints, and it is more complex in balance and execution.

Karl Streiger, on 15 July 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

Well and sound...although I think that the hardpoint size could be dynamical too... so that the Hunchback 4H is able to carry a AC 10 without any option for Gauss, AC 20 or Double AC5.

As a alternative you can allow the 4H to carry 2 leight weight ballistic slots - each give 4 criticals and 6tons.
So the Hunch 4H is able to carry 2 ballistic weapons up to 12tons -> LBX, Ultra 5, AC 5 + MG or 2 AC 2 or AC 10.

With sized hardpoints, the hunchback 4H would have a single medium ballistic hardpoint, which would allow it to carry an AC/10 or under, but not AC/20 or Gauss.

skullman86, on 13 July 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Potential problem mechs that I can think of off the top of my head:

• JM6-DD: 4 critical slots x 3 ballistic hardpoints = Dual AC/20s HNNNNNNG
  
• CPLT-K2: Needs another energy hardpoint in the arms to carry PPCs (2 crits per hardpoint) and to give it an edge over the Firebrand who has a very samey, but all around better layout IMO.
  
• Awesomes need a 3 critical slot per hardpoint quirk to effectively dominate the energy boating role (like they are supposed to)
  
• HGN 733p needs an additional energy hardpoint in the left arm to allow double PPCs. It's an energy variant, so it should be given some special attention to better define its role
  
• HBK-4H and Atlases would need increases ballistics hardpoint sizes or more hardpoints so they can carry their stock weapons etc.

Jager DD: It would get four medium and two small ballistic hardpoints, which means that it would only be able to fit AC/10 and under on four slots, and AC/2 or MG in the remaining two.

Capapult K2: It gets two large and two small energy hardpoints, no need to add any extra. This allows it to carry any energy weapons in the arms, and medium or small lasers in the torso slots. It also gets two small ballistic points, which would allow it to carry either two MG or two AC/2.

Awesome 8Q and 9M would both get 3 large energy hardpoints, allowing them to carry up to 3 of any energy weapon, as well as a couple medium and small hardpoints, so that it could fit a small amount of heavy energy weapons, a medium amount of large lasers, or a large amount of smaller energy weapons. No need to change the hardpoint number or layout.

HGN-733P: This wouldn't get two large energy points, only one large and one medium. This would allow for Either a PPC and Large Laser, 2 Large Lasers, or any combination of smaller energy weapons.

HBK-4H would get its one medium ballistic, as mentioned above, and all of the Atlai except the RS would get one large ballistic or one large and one medium. This would allow either an AC/20, or any combination of 2 AC/10s, AC/5s or below.

I personally believe that using sized hardpoints, independent of any crit slot restrictions, would be the easiest way to convert the current system into something that makes more sense, restores actual variation between mechs, and drastically improves game balance. All you have to do to come up with the hardpoint layout of any mech variant is to break the stock loadout down into small, medium and large. You assign one hardpoint of the appropriate size per stock weapon, and then add hardpoints of diminishing size for each additional unfilled hardpoint. For example, the Hunchback 4G comes stock with an AC/20, and has two other unused ballistic hardpoints in the same location. It would get one large, one medium, and one small ballistic hardpoint. The only exception to this rule that I can think of would be for the Dragon 5N, to give it two medium and one small ballistic hardpoint. This would allow it to have either an AC/10, two AC/5s, or 3 small ballistics in its arm.

[BillyM]

YES YES YES YES YES FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES!

--billyM

[Lykaon]

I would not even go as far as creating a "one size fits all" hardpoint solution.

If you limit hardpoints to a few classifications light medium large etc. this creates a system that is applied to every chassis and variant indiscriminatley.

This could lead to unintended results and the possibility of painting the developers into a corner.

A more ellegant system is far more open yet places intelligently applied restrictions on a chassis by chassis basis.

I would suggest the following three laws of hardpoints.

A single hardpoint can only ever have a single weapon fitted to it.

Any given hardpoint is defined by it's weapon class allowed ie. energy,missile,ballistic or omni

Any given hardpoint has a critical slot cap applied to it.No weapon in excess of the critical slots of the hardpoint may be used on that hardpoint.

an example of this sytem in use.

Hunchback 4P (a pre existing "boat") hardpoint layout.

head: 1 energy hardpoint with 1 critical capacity

RA: 1 energy hardpoint with 2 critical capacity

LA: 1 energy hardpoint with 2 critical capacity

RT: 1 energy hardpoint with 3 critical capacity
5 energy hardpoints with 1 critical capacity

It is clear to see that not only can this retain the stock loadout or even a refined variant on the basic loadout (like upgrade to pulse lasers) there is also opertunity to do some unusual builds like three large lasers or a PPC in the RT accompanied with a battery of medium lasers.There are several options available to customizing the 4P yet none of them are multiple PPC boat builds.


Now to address concerns about "native Boats" or mechs like Awesome 8Q,Thunderhawks or Devestators.

There are mechs that are by design suppose to have high alpha strike potential.So hardpoint restrictions alone will not "fix" these designs.

But fortunatley for us we already have two pre-existing game mechanics that can "fix" these "native boats".

We have engine size limitations and we have chassis design quirks.These mechanics can be applied to "boat' mechs to create a system of trade offs.

So you want a mech with 2 gauss rifles and 2 PPC? we got one it's a devestator,but it is also slow on the torso twist and has limited torso pitch and rotation so it's real easy to get behind and stay behind a devestator. Also it can't have an engine bigger than a 300 so it's never going to be faster than 48 KPH.

By having hardpoint limits that are tailored to each variant we can give specific features and abilities to specific variants of chassis providing a purpose for those mechs.

By removing the capacity for every mech to boat all the big guns we move the boating issue from all mechs with hardpoints to just mechs with large enough hardpoints.Essentially this allows targeted modification of specific chassis and variants rather than sweeping changes or mechanics that effect everything.

By using hardpoint critical caps with other mechanics the developers have tools to directly address boat mechs rather than the situation we have now where the developers have no choice but to address a concept of boating in broad strokes with high potential for collateral damage on non offending builds.

[Boyinleaves]

Big Giant Head, on 15 July 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

This is a beautiful thing, love the presentation.

Lykaon above me has nailed it in my opinion. Anything that increases the variance in Mech chassis is a good thing, and hardpoints alone do not do it; there are a ridiculous number of variants that are to similar, not only to others of the same chassis, but of other chassis as well.



It can be split:


In Jagermechs DD both arms, same goes for Dragon 5Ns right arm








Hunchie 4H



Awesome 8Q


Dont mind those black spaces just ignore them

[Big Giant Head]

Postumus, on 15 July 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

I personally believe that using sized hardpoints, independent of any crit slot restrictions, would be the easiest way to convert the current system into something that makes more sense, restores actual variation between mechs, and drastically improves game balance. All you have to do to come up with the hardpoint layout of any mech variant is to break the stock loadout down into small, medium and large. You assign one hardpoint of the appropriate size per stock weapon, and then add hardpoints of diminishing size for each additional unfilled hardpoint. For example, the Hunchback 4G comes stock with an AC/20, and has two other unused ballistic hardpoints in the same location. It would get one large, one medium, and one small ballistic hardpoint. The only exception to this rule that I can think of would be for the Dragon 5N, to give it two medium and one small ballistic hardpoint. This would allow it to have either an AC/10, two AC/5s, or 3 small ballistics in its arm.

Big Giant Head, on 15 July 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

I totaly support the idea
I actually had the same only in my case it was 1 crit for missile segment 2 for energy and 3 for ballistics
But the more I think, I realize this could be handled a lot easier.

Instead of putting hardpoint slots over-top critical slots put the in some kind of sub-menu in mechlab.
So when you open "Loadout", there should be two new windows

One is for weapon crit slots (similar to MW4), second is crit slot we have now

And when you arrange all those weapons in hardpoint slots and press OK and once you press it, it switches you to second window
on the next window all those weapons fall into critical slots - each of their critical slot size remain.
And then from there you can start putting equipment

Edited by Big Giant Head, 16 July 2013 - 01:58 AM.

[Tennex]

completely agree. This would solve a lot of the game's boating issues, while also adding diversity to mech variants. and make them more distinct from eachother.

[Laserkid]

MW:O is not mechwarrior 4. If this was ever implemented, I'd stop playing. The current hardpoint system allows for a good balance of customization between MW3. (duel AC20s on EVERYTHING!) and MW4 (you might as well be stock.) I know enough to see that a Jagaer is a ballistic mech...but not enough to know exactly what kind of weps he will have.

Edited by Laserkid, 21 July 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[Big Giant Head]

Laserkid, on 21 July 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

MW:O is not mechwarrior 4. If this was ever implemented, I'd stop playing. The current hardpoint system allows for a good balance of customization between MW3. (duel AC20s on EVERYTHING!) and MW4 (you might as well be stock.) I know enough to see that a Jagaer is a ballistic mech...but not enough to know exactly what kind of weps he will have.

We are not trying to copy the exact MW4 layout
We are using its system of slots.
I agree that in MW4 weapon hardpoints wasnt very well combined, but what really matters is its core rule.

You can still keep critical slot system, only thing that is changing are hardpoint slots not critical slot - critical size of each weapon still matters
Hardpoint slots wont interfere with critical slots:

Spoiler

Quote

Instead of putting hardpoint slots over-top critical slots put the in some kind of sub-menu in mechlab.
So when you open "Loadout", there should be two new windows

One is for weapon crit slots (similar to MW4), second is crit slot we have now

And when you arrange all those weapons in hardpoint slots and press OK and once you press it, it switches you to second window
on the next window all those weapons fall into critical slots - each of their critical slot size remain.
And then from there you can start putting equipment

None says that we should take the exact hardpoint layout from MW4
And BTW reason for other variants to exist are these hardpoint rules

Edited by Big Giant Head, 21 July 2013 - 08:41 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

I have found a cannon JaegerMech with dual gauss...based on the JM6-DD.
Question is... do you want to see this variant in game - or not.
Its obviously not necessary.
What about Mechs like Shootist...can create same loadout with the CTF-1X.

That means the DD is not necessary too, because you can create the JM6-DD with the JM6-S. Not to mention the Quickdraws

That in mind the current hardpoint system is senseless. Only reason for 3 variants is that kinky MechSkill madness.
I hate this concept so much. I really believe anything else would be better. May it be one or the other direction

[Big Giant Head]

Karl Streiger, on 22 July 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

I have found a cannon JaegerMech with dual gauss...based on the JM6-DD.
Question is... do you want to see this variant in game - or not.
Its obviously not necessary.
What about Mechs like Shootist...can create same loadout with the CTF-1X.

That means the DD is not necessary too, because you can create the JM6-DD with the JM6-S. Not to mention the Quickdraws

That in mind the current hardpoint system is senseless. Only reason for 3 variants is that kinky MechSkill madness.
I hate this concept so much. I really believe anything else would be better. May it be one or the other direction

Yeah well said, nice.

[Voivode]

There are things I like about it and things I don't. On the one hand it would help balance the game. On the other the actual ability to customize would be severely curbed. Meta game items like "just run PPCs" or "LRMageddon" would be just about impossible with the system you've outlined. Then again, I like running some very odd builds and under this system I couldn't run those. So that leaves me kind of torn about it.

[Vaan]

PGI already mention that they wont and will not implement hardpoint limitation.. I already about to give up this stupid boatingwarrior online game..

[Kyrs]

Not very fond of this hardpoint limitation. The devellopper is already having trouble to balance the weapons and this will just over complicate the current balancing (still in the work as we all know).

My main problem with this mw4 settup is that you'll end up with very few variant which are competive for 8vs8 or 12vs12. This is the main reason why I stop playing mw4 after 4 month.

The current system is a mix of mw3 and mw4 which give a bit of flexibility without killing variantes.

Altho this post seem to adresse some of the flaws of mw4 hardpoint system(some flexible hardpoint), you'll end up killing my fun of the mech lab (which is half of the game for me).

Edited by Kyrs, 22 July 2013 - 06:36 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Vaan, on 22 July 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

PGI already mention that they wont and will not implement hardpoint limitation.. I already about to give up this stupid boatingwarrior online game..

If you see that there is broken balance in system and you think you know something that will fix it, fight for it.
They always tweak heat and damage.
They didnt tweak anything within hardpoint system, but logic tells you that hardpoint system limits mounting weapon which has to make it 1st priority in game balancing in MWO

Kyrs, on 22 July 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

Not very fond of this hardpoint limitation. The devellopper is already having trouble to balance the weapons and this will just over complicate the current balancing (still in the work has we all know).

My main problem with this mw4 settup is that you'll end up with very few variant which are competive for 8vs8 or 12vs12. This is the main reason why I stop playing mw4 after 4 month.

The current system is a mix of mw3 and mw4 which give a bit of flexibility without killing variantes.

Altho this post seem to adresse some of the flaws of mw4 hardpoint system(some flexible hardpoint), you'll end up killing my fun of the mech lab (which is half of the game for me).

This is not MW4 system completely "copy-pasted"
Im not gonna repeat again
Its not MW4 hardpoint layout we want
But its core rule of hardpoint managing
Critical slot system is still in
Critical size of weapon stays as is
Only thing thats changing are hardpoints

Edited by Big Giant Head, 22 July 2013 - 06:38 AM.