159 replies to this topic

[Jestun]

Big Giant Head, on 27 July 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Ignore black rectangles and critical slots in general and dont mind critical slots of each hardpoint either - just focus on hardpoint slots

So, am I just looking at linked slots producing a malus (e.g. higher heat from linked weapons if not fired far enough apart)?

That's not really a hardpoint restriction system as it doesn't restrict anything.

This is something completely different to the idea presented in the OP, which is what I was responding to.

[Big Giant Head]

Jestun, on 27 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

[/size]

So, am I just looking at linked slots producing a malus (e.g. higher heat from linked weapons if not fired far enough apart)?

That's not really a hardpoint restriction system as it doesn't restrict anything.

This is something completely different to the idea presented in the OP, which is what I was responding to.

Yes, its not completely different.
Why did I put heat and cooldown pushback for linked weapons?
If you want to alpha, It pushes you to load 1 weapon at each slot, so in order to be more effective, load 1 weapon at each slot
If you are ok with chain - firing certain weapons (weapons that are loaded in same slot) you can freely do that but if your hardpoint slot isnt built for that you can still fire linked weapons at the same time although its more effective to chain fire those certain weapons.

As I said, MW4 hardpoint layout sucked but its system of slots has great potential.

So mechs like HBK-4P, obivously wont have 1x 6 energy hardpoint slot. It would be more like 2x 2 plus 2x 1 energy hardpoit slot - being able to shoot up to 4 ML (of his right torso) at the same time without pushback and then firing the other 2 ML (of his right torso).

You can play wtih this system a lot. So for example I splited Dragons-5N right arm hardpoints into: 1x 2 + 1x1 ballistic hardpoints.(previous post)

At the end there are more variants, so some undesirable/ unused variants like Victors.
Current problem with variants (like Victors and Dragons) is that hardpoint layout allows you to load big number of same weapon loadout - meaning they become useless or they all become the same.

Quote

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, 27 July 2013 - 07:54 AM.

[Jestun]

Big Giant Head, on 27 July 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Ok...can you confirm somethig for me.

If I put a series of small lasers in a set of linked hardpoints would I get a penalty for firing them too close together? How about Medium lasers, small pulse, medium pulse? Hell, even large pulse and large lasers.

Based on what I have read it will apply a malus to each of these - these are not OP builds that require nerfing.

[Big Giant Head]

Jestun, on 27 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

This is something completely different to the idea presented in the OP, which is what I was responding to.

You, as well as some others are responding of implementing the exact MW4 hardpoint layout.

Difference is that we dont need that, we need "something" like MW4 hardpoint slot system

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 08:01 AM.

[Jestun]

Big Giant Head, on 27 July 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

You, as well as some others are responding of implementing the exact MW4 hardpoint layout.

Difference is that we dont need that, we need "something" like MW4 hardpoint slot system



first referesh your page as I might add something that you missed.

We don't "need" either.

[Big Giant Head]

Jestun, on 27 July 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Ok...can you confirm somethig for me.

If I put a series of small lasers in a set of linked hardpoints would I get a penalty for firing them too close together? How about Medium lasers, small pulse, medium pulse? Hell, even large pulse and large lasers.

Based on what I have read it will apply a malus to each of these - these are not OP builds that require nerfing.

first referesh your page as I might add something that you missed.

Quote

1 SLOT - 1 WEAPON

If you decide to put more weapons in 1 slot you will receive pushback:
(if you dont respect given rule)

*Just so everyone know these slots are the slots inspired by MW4 system
There can be more slots per component
Slots can have more segments from 1 to 4
Example:
1(slot)x 1(segment)
1(slot)x 2(segments)
1(slot)x 3(segments)
1(slot)x 4(segments)




2(slot)x 1(segments)
2(slot)x 2(segments)
2(slot)x 3(segments)
2(slot)x 4(segments)

And so on...

• Ballistic weapon will get increased cooldown:

It will punish player







When:
when player fires the other ballistic weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 50% of the fired weapon cooldown.
How:
the weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 30% of the fired weapon cooldown will get increased cooldown: 25% of the initial cooldown ( both percentages can be tweaked)
Meaning:
that "dakka-dakka" that ballistic weapons from the same slot outputs, will get slower with time
Exceptions:
Like jagermechs, they will have 2x 1 ballistic slot in both of their arms,
DD variant will have 1x 1 plus 1x 2 in both

• Energy weapon will get increased heat output:

When:



when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 40% of the initial heat output ( both percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
player will be forced to chainfire and will have better sense for firing lasers and their heat generated
Exceptions:
Like Hunchback 4P, they will have 2x 2 plus 2x 1 slots (which makes it 6), enabled to fire up to 4 med las size in alpha without pushback, rest two will have to go in sub-alpha chainfire if player doesnt want to have pushback on those two weapons

• Missile weapon will get increased heat output and cooldown but both will be weaker than energy and ballistic:

When:


when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 45% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 45% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 25% of the initial heat output ( all percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
Player will be forced to hold lock-on longer

Number (percentages) can be tweaked tho

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[Jestun]

Quote

Energy weapon will get increased heat output:
When:



when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 40% of the initial heat output ( both percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
player will be forced to chainfire and will have better sense for firing lasers and their heat generated
Exceptions:
Like Hunchback 4P, they will have 2x 2 plus 2x 1 slots (which makes it 6), enabled to fire up to 4 med las size in alpha without pushback, rest two will have to go in sub-alpha chainfire if player doesnt want to have pushback on those two weapons

So yes, multiple small pulse lasers in linked slots would apply a heat penalty if fired close together.

That is in no way required, it's completely unnecessary.

The "solution" destroys (in the case of large / medium / small restrictions as discussed in the OP) or nerfs (as in your post) builds which should not be destroyed or nerfed.

Edited by Jestun, 27 July 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Jestun, on 27 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

So yes, multiple small pulse lasers in linked slots would apply a heat penalty if fired close together.

That is in no way required, it's completely unnecessary.

The "solution" destroys (in the case of large / medium / small restrictions as discussed in the OP) or nerfs (as in your post) builds which should not be destroyed or nerfed.

Ill say it again: it pushes you to load 1 weapon to 1 slot
Boat mechs like HBK 4P wont have such pushback as you described, because boating smaller weapons in RT wont be restricted by chainfiring - except 2ML

Take for example HBK 4H (picture) you can load 1 AC/10 in it or 2 AC/2s, 2 AC/5,....
I made it so that you could put some larger ballistic weapon in right torso or lower, but if you decide to put 2 smaller weapons it will push you to chainfire

Quote

So yes, multiple small pulse lasers in linked slots would apply a heat penalty if fired close together.

They wont be if hardpoint layout goes like 2x 1 energy hardpoints like in HBK-4H variation in RT (picture in previous post)

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[xRatas]

Riall, on 01 July 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

They don't need to change the hardpoints system. They need to change convergence so that it takes more than a split second to converge on a target 1000m away when you were just aiming at a target 300m away. Add some convergence time in there so your long range boats need to wait before shooting and/or add some functionality to the mouse wheel to let pilots set their convergence manually.

Thery should just make torso weapons immobile. You set convergence distance in mechlab, and it is then fixed there during game. That's how it's been done in real life (i.e. WW2 aircraft guns), and increases skill requirement quite a bit. Simple solution, no need for another boatload of weird stuff like everyone seem to think is best. While at it, make only arms be stabilized on move.

Edit: I'm big fan of more defined hardpoints, would make game lot better and more varied for sure.

Edited by xRatas, 27 July 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

xRatas, on 27 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Thery should just make torso weapons immobile.

Yeah that bothered me a lot, but the longer I thought, I just said: hey its 3050 so I think that currently it is the way it is suppose to be although there will always be little cheeses like this

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Griffinhart]

Karl Streiger, on 25 July 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

If you are forced to use a limited hardpoint setting - how should it look like?

I personally don't care what it should look like. I would simply stop playing and more importantly paying for the game. People would still flock to the perceived best load out and mech, and that's all that would be seen on the battlefield. It wouldn't improve the game at all, and make it less fun for a lot of people. I know several people that would just give up the game entirely if such a system were to be implemented.

[Big Giant Head]

Griffinhart, on 27 July 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I personally don't care what it should look like. I would simply stop playing and more importantly paying for the game. People would still flock to the perceived best load out and mech, and that's all that would be seen on the battlefield. It wouldn't improve the game at all, and make it less fun for a lot of people. I know several people that would just give up the game entirely if such a system were to be implemented.

You probably thought of MW4 hardpoint layout being implemented instead of MWOs critical slot. Well its not like it
Currently there is best loadout and mech,
In worst case scenario, this system wont fully negate that, but it would definitely reduce difference in OP-ness between "best" loadout and other loadouts

You probably dont even care about it - as long as there are some components of this system based on MW4 hardpoint system (not hardpoint layout), you will sht on it because you dont even want to try to understand it

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[Griffinhart]

Big Giant Head, on 27 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

You probably thought of MW4 hard point layout being implemented instead of MWOs critical slot. Well its not like it
Currently there is best load out and mech,
In worst case scenario, this system wont fully negate that, but it would definitely reduce difference in OP-ness between "best" load out and other load outs

You probably dont even care about it - as long as there are some components of this system based on MW4 hardpoint system (not hardpoint layout), you will sht on it because you dont even want to try to understand it

I would rather have zero hard point restrictions. I didn't like the MW4 restrictions either.
I've been playing the TT version since the 80's and I have played all Battletech computer games all along. To me, one of the things I enjoyed the most about Battletech was the customization. On paper, me and friends would spend hours designing mechs. On Computer, we would spend hours and hours pitting our load outs at each other in Mercenaries.
I like to choose my mech based on tonnage, look and then customize it to meet my play style. The current hard point system already restricts it enough that I will never play certain chassis because I can't put the weapons I like in it. And No, while I have tried 4x PPC's, 2x AC20's, I rarely play these types of builds as I find I do better with other builds. I play a 4x AC2 far more often than those others.
Plus I'm not "shttng" on anything. I'm simply stating a fact. I will not play MWO if it restricts hard points in such a way. PGI can do as they please. The product will simply become a game I am not interested in playing. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. I probably spend more money on this game than some, less than others. A decision to stop playing in such a situation may mean nothing to PGI or anyone on this board, I don't really care. There are plenty of other games out there I can choose to spend my time and money on.
There are always going to be min/max players in any competitive game. That means they are going to find and play the builds that they find the most effective and give the greatest advantage. That means the people that feel that they need to copy those players and those builds will be perceived as the mechs that MUST be played in order to progress. Those that hate min/max will come to the forums and rail against what ever the perceived problem is. It's the game balance spiral. And when developers buy into it too readily and make too many adjustments because of it, the game just becomes... well. Less interesting and less fun.

Edited by Griffinhart, 27 July 2013 - 10:05 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Griffinhart, on 27 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I would rather have zero hard point restrictions. I didn't like the MW4 restrictions either.
I've been playing the TT version since the 80's and I have played all Battletech computer games all along. To me, one of the things I enjoyed the most about Battletech was the customization. On paper, me and friends would spend hours designing mechs. On Computer, we would spend hours and hours pitting our load outs at each other in Mercenaries.
I like to choose my mech based on tonnage, look and then customize it to meet my play style. The current hard point system already restricts it enough that I will never play certain chassis because I can't put the weapons I like in it. And No, while I have tried 4x PPC's, 2x AC20's, I rarely play these types of builds as I find I do better with other builds. I play a 4x AC2 far more often than those others.
Plus I'm not "shttng" on anything. I'm simply stating a fact. I will not play MWO if it restricts hard points in such a way. PGI can do as they please. The product will simply become a game I am not interested in playing. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. I probably spend more money on this game than some, less than others. A decision to stop playing in such a situation may mean nothing to PGI or anyone on this board, I don't really care. There are plenty of other games out there I can choose to spend my time and money on.
There are always going to be min/max players in any competitive game. That means they are going to find and play the builds that they find the most effective and give the greatest advantage. That means the people that feel that they need to copy those players and those builds will be perceived as the mechs that MUST be played in order to progress. Those that hate min/max will come to the forums and rail against what ever the perceived problem is. It's the game balance spiral. And when developers buy into it too readily and make too many adjustments because of it, the game just becomes... well. Less interesting and less fun.

You dont want to restrict player too much or give him too much freedom. Actually everyone has different taste


We know that TT rules had hit modifiers just like MWT has.
In FPS, damage goes from mech to mech with pinpoint reticule.
Problem is that those weapons and hardpoints are based on TT rules and are introduced in FPS game (MWO) are combined with regular FPS reticule
So main problem is high alpha dmg at concentrated point - high pinpoint damage
What to adress?. Pinpoint accuracy or high damage?
How much damage player brings to battle?


Chassis of the same tonnage differ by their hardpoint layout, turrning rate, arms, etc.
If you could make any build on any mech why other mechs even exist?
Whats the difference?
Especially variants, why are they here?
As soon as PGI introduces large number of chassis and their beloved variants, what is left to differ 1 mech from another? Looks? Paint jobs?

And true customization doesnt come freedom to crank up anything you want on any mech as soon as you see the chance, something thats OP, cookie cutter.
Its all about the thinking, restriction pushes you to think.

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[Griffinhart]

Forive the use of "." between paragraphs. for some reason the forum's editor won't let Win8 with IE10 format properly.

Big Giant Head, on 27 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

You dont want to restrict player too much or give him too much freedom. Actually everyone has different taste

And that is why I have lived with the current hard point restricitons. Any more than we have today takes it beyond reasonable.

Quote

We know that TT rules had hit modifiers just like MWT has.

I'm fine with more agressive heat penalties, though people will need to realize that this will affect all mechs, not just PPC boats. Again, I can live with that.

Quote

In FPS, damage goes from mech to mech with pinpoint reticule.
Problem is that those weapons and hardpoints are based on TT rules and are introduced in FPS game (MWO) are combined with regular FPS reticule
So main problem is high alpha dmg at concentrated point - high pinpoint damage
What to adress?. Pinpoint accuracy or high damage?
How much damage player brings to battle?

on the TT, Modifiers were used to simulate a pilots ability, since there is no way to replicate that on paper. They simulate things like a pilots need to compensate for their movement, the range and movement of the target, ie how much they need to lead the target, etc... The need for modifiers is a bit less when you can bring actual player skill into play. It is really the ability to group fire that doesn't really have an even translation from TT to PC game, but they have mitigated a lot of that by doubling the durability of the Mech. The reality is, those Dual AC20 hits people fear bring no more relative damage to a mech than they did on the TT.
.

Quote

Chassis of the same tonnage differ by their hardpoint layout, turrning rate, arms, etc.
If you could make any build on any mech why other mechs even exist?
Whats the difference?

Chassis still have turning rates, torso twist range, arms, etc to make then desirable. Then there is the design of the mech. something as basic as the look. This is a large consideration for many players. For many players, like myself, the look and style of the mech is right up there.
.
By overly restricting hardpoints, you also limit the possibilites of new creative loadouts to counter the current OP Mech of the day.
.
While I am not a fan of the current Hard Point restricitons, I live with it because it still gives me enough flexabilty to work with it. Anything more restrictive would just put it in the "why bother" category for me.
.

Quote

Especially variants, why are they here?

Variants are good starting points for custom designs. Often bringing a lot of the equipment without having to everything seperately.

Quote

As soon as PGI introduces large number of chassis and their beloved variants, what is left to differ 1 mech from another? Looks? Paint jobs?

And the existing hard point system. On the other hand, No one will really bother with variants if the hard point system is more restrictive because if it can't fit the current percieved best load out, no one will jockey them.
.
There are plenty of other ways PGI could approach things. Non destructive heat penalties for heat approaching 100%, Here are some examples of what can be added.
.
Torso Twist radius temporarily reduces by vaying degrees the closer you get to 100%
.
Top speed starts to drop the closer you get to 100%.
.
Weapons being fired as a group may randomly start firing slightly out of sync the hotter the mech gets as the computer control system starts over heating. Really close to 100% maybe one or two weapons will fail to fire all together on that single click. not like a jam, just a non fire.
.
Maybe the reticle can randomly fall out of alignment from the actual convergance point by a couple of degrees due to an overheating computer until the system isn't being pushed at or near max heat anymore.
.
Perhaps being at 80%+ for too long can cause the computer to "reboot" the tacticle map and Modules.
.
There are plenty of interesting ways to manage things. These ideas would keep the customization of Mech alive, and return actual heat management to the game. All while keeping the spirit of Mechwarrior alive. All without limiting player choice.

[Tezcatli]

I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand it makes each mech much more unique in the role that it fills. On the other hand it restricts the amount of customization that I enjoy.

I would honestly rather it not be a hard restriction. Something like penalties. So a PPC in a medium hard point gets a heat penalty. An AC20 in a medium hard point has it's cooldown extended to compensate for recoil. And so and so forth. Or perhaps even a small laser in a small hard point is cooler.

[Big Giant Head]

Griffinhart, on 27 July 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Chassis still have turning rates, torso twist range, arms, etc to make then desirable. Then there is the design of the mech. something as basic as the look. This is a large consideration for many players. For many players, like myself, the look and style of the mech is right up there.


By overly restricting hardpoints, you also limit the possibilites of new creative loadouts to counter the current OP Mech of the day.

While I am not a fan of the current Hard Point restricitons, I live with it because it still gives me enough flexabilty to work with it. Anything more restrictive would just put it in the "why bother" category for me.


Variants are good starting points for custom designs. Often bringing a lot of the equipment without having to everything seperately.

And the existing hard point system. On the other hand, No one will really bother with variants if the hard point system is more restrictive because if it can't fit the current percieved best load out, no one will jockey them.

There are plenty of other ways PGI could approach things. Non destructive heat penalties for heat approaching 100%, Here are some examples of what can be added.

Torso Twist radius temporarily reduces by vaying degrees the closer you get to 100%

Top speed starts to drop the closer you get to 100%.

Weapons being fired as a group may randomly start firing slightly out of sync the hotter the mech gets as the computer control system starts over heating. Really close to 100% maybe one or two weapons will fail to fire all together on that single click. not like a jam, just a non fire.

Maybe the reticle can randomly fall out of alignment from the actual convergance point by a couple of degrees due to an overheating computer until the system isn't being pushed at or near max heat anymore.

Perhaps being at 80%+ for too long can cause the computer to "reboot" the tacticle map and Modules.

There are plenty of interesting ways to manage things. These ideas would keep the customization of Mech alive, and return actual heat management to the game. All while keeping the spirit of Mechwarrior alive. All without limiting player choice.

I do respect what you say and I like heat movement penalties you brought out and many of those penalties are great.
I dont think that turning rate and speed reduction are going to have an impact in mech on mech with similar tonnage combat.
Maybe it brings meduim and light to a state that they are actually useful, although thats hard to belive either

But what this hardpoint limitation wants to do is to focus customization on smaller scale than we currently have.
If there is 1 mech for each tonnage rating(20, 25, 30, 35,..) availble ( no variants), current system could do.
Hardpoint limitation subject is though because everyone has different taste in gameplay especially with Mechwarrior

Myself for example. I love when mechs are determined by their hardpoints it proves why are they shaped like that. When you have a lot of mechs to choose from it makes it more special. Customization is narrowed from being able to put anything to loading weapons that will follow with certain criteria, its a bit of a challenge.

All i know is that I dont like current state, if you are gonna have hardpoint limitation at least do it the right way or just completely remove it

Edited by Big Giant Head, 27 July 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[Dracol]

IMHO, what PGI decided to implement was a good balance between the two extremes: complete customization vrs
Mw4 size restrictions

Complete customization leads to only a few chassis used, picked due to geometry and piloting performance

MW4 type restrictions leads to only a few chassis used, picked due to which FotM weapon configuration can be used

[Big Giant Head]

Tezcatli, on 27 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand it makes each mech much more unique in the role that it fills. On the other hand it restricts the amount of customization that I enjoy.

I would honestly rather it not be a hard restriction. Something like penalties. So a PPC in a medium hard point gets a heat penalty. An AC20 in a medium hard point has it's cooldown extended to compensate for recoil. And so and so forth. Or perhaps even a small laser in a small hard point is cooler.

That is good point

[Kyrs]

like the other said!
I would go with heat penalty, not limitation
the hardpoint system should let you put big weapons but with a heat penalty. In other words remove the heat scale but put the hard point heat scale limitation.

exemple of number (didn't do the math of those)
-energy; +50% heat per exceeded slots (if it not a stackable slot)
-balistic; 20% heat per slots (if not stackable slot)

This should be easier to understand for new players, since your putting to much electricity in those wires feeding the hardpoint (HEAT UP TO MUCH). In 3050 we don't use breaker!!!

Right now your just offerring added layer MW4 limitation over MWO system. Which is very bitter to the taste for many players.