11 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

NOTE: This is posted in Gameplay Balance because its a balancing feature. However if it needs to be 'moved' where the Devs see it, move it.


The idea is this for reworking the Hardpoint system by limiting the size of weapon that can be mounted by its Crit szie.

By doing so a wide number of builds and options are cut out. Unfortunately it makes a number of pilots lean towards specific mechs for the hardpoitns they want, but I don't see it much differently than the meta game we are playing currently.

The intent is specifically to limit what can mount and use PPC and AC-20, but at the same time allow those to change into something significantly different.


Each hardpoint location is restricted by its set stock crit size, with a few sporting exceptions.
The rules are you can mount up to the crit size max in each hardpoint, either through something that is large enough to fit, or able to place enough smaller items to fill that space.

In this a PPC spot is a PPC spot. That can be replaced by a LL and ML, or 3 ML. Allowing quite a change in available builds from what we see now. However something that has 3 ML like a Jenner is three 1-crit slots, and can't mount a PPC in it.

An AC-20 which is 10 Crits needs that sized slot. But those with it could swap for any combination of ballistics that can fit in that 10 crtis. Say an AC-10 and 3 MG, two AC-5 and 2 MG or 3 AC-2 and 7 MG, making for some very interesting alternatives if you can work the tonnage and ammo.

Missiles obey the rules along with the Artemis system. If you want that higher accuracy, you need to be able to slot that extra size. This is where part of the exceptions come in - the Catapult missile arms benefit from a single 6-crit slot. This can allow 3 LRM-5+Artemis to be mounted, or a single LRM-20+Artemis.


Later I'll add a list of the mechs and crit restrictions when I have time to finish it, but thought I should post the idea out since I've mentioned it a few times already.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 16 July 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[Lykaon]

You will see more boating from this than we have now.

Do you want to see what an Atlas with 8 AC2s can do?

How about streakcats with 10 SSRM 2s?Splatcats with 10 SRM4s?

The system you laid out is identical to the system used in Mechwarrior 4 and it was rife with boating and also had an issue with a handful of optimal chassis being used and tons and tons of mechs never being used.

Trust me I was there it's no better than what we have now.

A hybred system of MW4 and MWo may be useful as a developer's tool to create more unique mechs and allow for isolation of boat mechs to "native boats" like Awesome 8Qs and Hunchback 4ps.

I would suggest three rules for hardpoints.

Rule One: one weapon per hardpoint.

Rule Two: all hardpoints have a weapon classification denoting the type of weapon that may be mounted on that hardpoint.
Energy,Ballistic,Missile,Omni.

Rule Three: all hardpoints have a critical capacity any weapon that requires more crit space than is allocated to the hardpoint may not be fitted to that hardpoint.

Now I'm not saying that just because a stock mech has a medium laser mounted on a hardpoint that this hardpoint must be 1 critical in size.What I am saying is just because a hardpoint had a medium laser does not neccisarily mean a PPC will fit instead.

[Jestun]

No thanks.

The other dozens of duplicate threads have had arguments against it included, I'm not going to post them again so just do a forum search for "hardpoint" and you will find plenty.

[FupDup]

Lykaon, on 16 July 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

The system you laid out is identical to the system used in Mechwarrior 4 and it was rife with boating and also had an issue with a handful of optimal chassis being used and tons and tons of mechs never being used.

Actually, MW4 was all about spamming ERLL, ERPPC, and Clan Gauss. With jumpjets.


For spamming small weapons, you're thinking of MW3--which had no hardpoints at all (but a hard limit of 16 weapons per mech).

Edited by FupDup, 16 July 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[warner2]

Your idea is generally in a direction I likes although I think you need to think the details through. This sort of thing has been detailed on this forum numerous times and would solve a lot of the balance problems around right now. I just don't think PGI have time to do this, and even if they did, they'd break everybody's 'mechs and there would be much QQ'ing.

Unbound Inferno, on 16 July 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

In this a PPC spot is a PPC spot. That can be replaced by a LL and ML, or 3 ML. Allowing quite a change in available builds from what we see now. However something that has 3 ML like a Jenner is three 1-crit slots, and can't mount a PPC in it.

This would be a mistake since it would allow massive boating of smaller weapons. MW4 had this problem, leading to smaller weapons getting nerfed to the degree that you HAD to boat them for them to be useful. PGI have improved on this with their 1 weapon per hard-point rule.

I think it's definitely a good move to limit the amount you can increase a weapon in size; you should not be able to take a ML off and replace it with a PPC, or a MG with an AC20. You should be able to taken an AC10 off and replace it with an AC20, or Gauss Rifle however.

Combine MWO's one weapon per hard-point rule and MW4's hard-point size concept and we'd be onto a winner, I think.

[Roland]

I made a fairly detailed post about exactly this, last week.

[Unbound Inferno]

Lykaon, on 16 July 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

You will see more boating from this than we have now.

Do you want to see what an Atlas with 8 AC2s can do?

How about streakcats with 10 SSRM 2s?Splatcats with 10 SRM4s?

The system you laid out is identical to the system used in Mechwarrior 4 and it was rife with boating and also had an issue with a handful of optimal chassis being used and tons and tons of mechs never being used.

Trust me I was there it's no better than what we have now.

A hybred system of MW4 and MWo may be useful as a developer's tool to create more unique mechs and allow for isolation of boat mechs to "native boats" like Awesome 8Qs and Hunchback 4ps.

I would suggest three rules for hardpoints.

Rule One: one weapon per hardpoint.

Rule Two: all hardpoints have a weapon classification denoting the type of weapon that may be mounted on that hardpoint.
Energy,Ballistic,Missile,Omni.

Rule Three: all hardpoints have a critical capacity any weapon that requires more crit space than is allocated to the hardpoint may not be fitted to that hardpoint.

Now I'm not saying that just because a stock mech has a medium laser mounted on a hardpoint that this hardpoint must be 1 critical in size.What I am saying is just because a hardpoint had a medium laser does not neccisarily mean a PPC will fit instead.

Fair enough, but I'm leaning towards balancing weapons properly.

Right now certain weapons (like the AC-2) runs significantly higher return rate and cost than it should over the relative time that I suppose a Turn got translated to.

If it was balanced back properly to where it should be, this kind of design that encourages boating like that because you would need to boat to have such a weapon compete with another.

Take for instance the ML vs PPC now.
5 damage vs 10
4 heat vs 8
1 duration, 3 recharge vs instant 4 recharge


You need 2 ML to match a PPC on damage, but that doesn't factor range advantage PPC has. The ML costs the same as the PPC with little else - but you can't do that in MWO. One hardpoint says one hardpoint. So using something like a K2 with anything less than PPC is pointless because you just can't do it.

Originally its a per turn, with a different heat system and requirements. Thanks to MWO's base heat bonus we get away with builds and less HS.

3 ML vs PPC
15 dmg vs 10
3 makes 12 heat vs 10
3 requires 6 DHS vs 1 requires 5 DHS
Total 15 damage medium-short range vs 10 damage long range
9 tons total vs 12 tons total
21 slots vs 22 slots

ERPPC costs more to run, but you have well over double ML range

The balancing act works out better then, because its doable. Sure it makes some mechs dangerous to get close to, but those are also easy pickings at longer ranges. Yet those with the ML can get closer faster with more engine size or armor to help.

Right now its comparing the loadout and the biggest gun wins. You don't have an option outside the biggest guns.


I am working on breaking down the mechs and slots, and not all of them are as bad as you'd think. Sure some sound dangerous, but how hard is it to land 40 pts on an arm of a Cat to knock off half its firepower? I am not arguing that your fears are bad ones, but its not as bad as you think. When I'm done I'll edit and put it up.


Besides, some like the AC-2 is horribly out of line. If its damage and heat is brought in line the fact a Atlas could have 8 AC-2 wouldn't be that bad because that needs 8 AC-2 to do comparable damage.

Roland, on 16 July 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

I made a fairly detailed post about exactly this, last week.

Yeah, I read and I like it. Its alot like mine - I just never got around to posting my idea before.

[p00k]

thanks for making this suggestion for the 500th time. it's still a bad suggestion.

[Unbound Inferno]

p00k, on 16 July 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

thanks for making this suggestion for the 500th time. it's still a bad suggestion.

If you elaborate maybe I'll agree. Until then I'll still point out its better than what we have.

[Lykaon]

FupDup, on 16 July 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Actually, MW4 was all about spamming ERLL, ERPPC, and Clan Gauss. With jumpjets.


For spamming small weapons, you're thinking of MW3--which had no hardpoints at all (but a hard limit of 16 weapons per mech).

Actually I was thinking about MW4 and specificly the Novacat that was an ER LRG Laser offender as you mentioned.

You actually supported my point since the choice mechs were the ones that allowed loads of energy slots and jets as an added plus for the poptarting.

You wanted as much armor as possible on as small a profile as possible that also included the capacity to boat the choice weapons with jets being a plus.

with those perameters how many chassis were viable? 6? maybe 8? How many were available? 30? maybe 40? 80% obsolete nice ratio for variety.

[Roland]

Unbound Inferno, on 16 July 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Yeah, I read and I like it. Its alot like mine - I just never got around to posting my idea before.

I'm not seeing where the difference is. Is there a difference?

[Unbound Inferno]

Roland, on 16 July 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

I'm not seeing where the difference is. Is there a difference?

Its subtle I think.

You make no mention of being able to laod up more weapons if it can fit the crit size.

Take a K2's PPC arm. 1 3-crit size slot. I can slot a PPC, LL+ML or 3 ML in it.
However a hunchback's shoulder has 6x 1-crit slots. It can slot 6 ML/MPL/SL/SPL in it, but can't fit 2 PPC.

Likewise in Missile users, the crit slots are relatively tight. A C4's arm is 1x 6-slot crit. It can load a LRM-20+Artemis, or 3x LRM-5+Artemis.
Yet say a Tebuchet's arm pod is a single 4-crit slot. It can laod a LRM-15, or a LRM-10+Artemis or two LRM-5+Artemis. The only way to get a LRM20 would be to load 4x LRM-5s. Assuming Artemis is reworked and LRM flight paths and missile spreads fixed so Larger launches can compete, it would mean a C-4 is better than a Treb. Right now this would mean a Treb can match a C4's level of performance.

The kink I see limits certain mechs from outperforming others in their specialized fields.

Or more specifically, a Stalker or Atlas can't boat LRMs better than a Catapult or Awesome.On another note it'll also mean that many popular mechs like Stalkers for PPC spam can't do it - none of them could mount it, forcing PPC users to pick mechs that can.

I really got to get that list I am working on out here sometime.