177 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Naw Agent, that has been thoroughly vetted.

in TT the arc of fire on split crits limited the range to the most restricted location. So the KGC acts as if it has no lower arm or hand actuators in actual game mechanics, ANYHOW.

Since the hands ONLY acted as shields for the "delicate AC workings" anyhow, the need for hand actuators is technically moot. Does the Catapult need hand and lower arm actuators to have armored flaps protecting it's launchers? Then why does the KGC need them to do the same for it's ACs?

So instead of trying to add new rules following a mechanic that in the case of the KGC literally added NOTHING in TT anyhow (just poor planning), simply have it follow the same rules as the Victor or YLW, with the AC/20 arm, with no lower arm and hand actuators. Then add the "Claw" as a protective cover that opens and closes, like the Catapult.

Actually, the Hand Actuators (that is, the KGC's claws - not to be confused with the more-specialized Claw developed on Solaris) and Lower Arm Actuators did serve additional purposes in TT.

• "A punch attack has a Damage Value of 1 for every 10 tons (or fraction of 10 tons) that the attacker weighs. Reduce the damage by half for each upper or lower arm actuator damaged or not present, with these eff ects being cumulative. In other words, if both arm actuators are missing or damaged, reduce the attack damage to one-quarter of its original value (round fractions down, to a minimum of 1)." (Total Warfare, pg. 145)
  
• "Only ’Mechs with functioning hand actuators may pick up an object. To pick up an object, a ’Mech must end its Movement Phase in the same hex as the object, it must have an undamaged hand actuator in both arms and it may make no weapon or physical attacks that turn." (Total Warfare, pg. 261)
  
• "A ’Mech must have two hands, two lower arm, two upper arm and two shoulder actuators functioning to attempt crawling." (Tactical Operations, pg. 20)
  
• "To attempt a climb, a ’Mech must have at least one arm with all four actuators (hand, lower arm, upper arm and shoulder) functional, and that arm’s hand must be free (not holding a physical attack weapon such as a sword, hatchet and so on, a hand-held weapon or other object)." (Tactical Operations, pg. 22)
  
• "A ’Mech must have an arm with all four actuators functional to climb. If the hand actuator being used to climb is destroyed, the ’Mech will automatically fall; if the ’Mech is using two hands, then the ’Mech will only fall if both hand actuators are destroyed." (Tactical Operations, pg. 22)
  
• "To use the dangle-and-drop procedure, a ’Mech must have two undamaged hand actuators." (Tactical Operations, pg. 22)
  
• "When a ’Mech attempts to stand from a prone position, it uses its arms and legs to lift itself up. Therefore, missing or damaged arm actuators make standing up more difficult. Players can simulate this condition by applying additional modifiers to the Piloting Skill Roll needed to stand a ’Mech up. Apply a +1 modifier for each arm that has actuator damage or is missing actuators." (Tactical Operations, pg. 24)
  
• "Only ’Mechs with at least one undamaged hand actuator (or claw) may attempt a grabbing attack. Rather than inflicting damage, this type of attack is intended to take away an object that the target is holding, such as a handheld weapon, unprotected cargo or certain items that must be carried in “capture-the-flag” scenarios." (Tactical Operations, pg. 90)
  
• "Regardless of the object to be thrown (whether an inanimate object or another unit), a ’Mech with one working (unoccupied) hand actuator can throw objects up to 2.5 percent of its mass, while a ’Mech with two working (unoccupied) hand actuators can throw objects up to 10 percent of its mass. As usual, Triple Strength Myomer doubles the allowable weight." (Tactical Operations, pg. 92)

The presence of the Hand Actuators and Lower Arm Actuators in both of the KGC variants' arms, in spite of the crit-split AC/20s, allow for a variety of TT-gameplay-related tasks (some of which could be translated into MWO - such as affecting the rate at which a 'Mech could stand after a knockdown, or affecting it's ability to take and move the objective in any "capture/steal the flag/cargo/whatever" gametype, or affecting the amount of damage it could inflict with a melee attack) that it would not be otherwise capable of were those actuators absent (or damaged, or destroyed), in addition to providing some flavor to the 'Mech.

Additionally, removing the actuators wouldn't really help with the KGC-0000, as the AC/20s are actually mounted primarily in the side-torsi with the extra criticals bleeding over into the arms (as seen on the KGC-0000 record sheet), which is the reverse of the situation with the KGC-000's guns (as seen on the KGC-000 record sheet).
As such, the KGC-0000 is unworkable without crit-splitting, and the next variant in the BT timeline is ComStar's "Clanbuster" variant (the KGC-001), which doesn't appear until the Battle of Tukayyid takes place (though, at least it doesn't have to be concerned about the crit-splitting issue).

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 09 August 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

Actually, the Hand Actuators (that is, the KGC's claws - not to be confused with the more-specialized Claw developed on Solaris) and Lower Arm Actuators did serve additional purposes in TT.

• "A punch attack has a Damage Value of 1 for every 10 tons (or fraction of 10 tons) that the attacker weighs. Reduce the damage by half for each upper or lower arm actuator damaged or not present, with these eff ects being cumulative. In other words, if both arm actuators are missing or damaged, reduce the attack damage to one-quarter of its original value (round fractions down, to a minimum of 1)." (Total Warfare, pg. 145)
  
• "Only ’Mechs with functioning hand actuators may pick up an object. To pick up an object, a ’Mech must end its Movement Phase in the same hex as the object, it must have an undamaged hand actuator in both arms and it may make no weapon or physical attacks that turn." (Total Warfare, pg. 261)
  
• "A ’Mech must have two hands, two lower arm, two upper arm and two shoulder actuators functioning to attempt crawling." (Tactical Operations, pg. 20)
  
• "To attempt a climb, a ’Mech must have at least one arm with all four actuators (hand, lower arm, upper arm and shoulder) functional, and that arm’s hand must be free (not holding a physical attack weapon such as a sword, hatchet and so on, a hand-held weapon or other object)." (Tactical Operations, pg. 22)
  
• "A ’Mech must have an arm with all four actuators functional to climb. If the hand actuator being used to climb is destroyed, the ’Mech will automatically fall; if the ’Mech is using two hands, then the ’Mech will only fall if both hand actuators are destroyed." (Tactical Operations, pg. 22)
  
• "To use the dangle-and-drop procedure, a ’Mech must have two undamaged hand actuators." (Tactical Operations, pg. 22)
  
• "When a ’Mech attempts to stand from a prone position, it uses its arms and legs to lift itself up. Therefore, missing or damaged arm actuators make standing up more difficult. Players can simulate this condition by applying additional modifiers to the Piloting Skill Roll needed to stand a ’Mech up. Apply a +1 modifier for each arm that has actuator damage or is missing actuators." (Tactical Operations, pg. 24)
  
• "Only ’Mechs with at least one undamaged hand actuator (or claw) may attempt a grabbing attack. Rather than inflicting damage, this type of attack is intended to take away an object that the target is holding, such as a handheld weapon, unprotected cargo or certain items that must be carried in “capture-the-flag” scenarios." (Tactical Operations, pg. 90)
  
• "Regardless of the object to be thrown (whether an inanimate object or another unit), a ’Mech with one working (unoccupied) hand actuator can throw objects up to 2.5 percent of its mass, while a ’Mech with two working (unoccupied) hand actuators can throw objects up to 10 percent of its mass. As usual, Triple Strength Myomer doubles the allowable weight." (Tactical Operations, pg. 92)

The presence of the Hand Actuators and Lower Arm Actuators in both of the KGC variants' arms, in spite of the crit-split AC/20s, allow for a variety of TT-gameplay-related tasks (some of which could be translated into MWO - such as affecting the rate at which a 'Mech could stand after a knockdown, or affecting it's ability to take and move the objective in any "capture/steal the flag/cargo/whatever" gametype, or affecting the amount of damage it could inflict with a melee attack) that it would not be otherwise capable of were those actuators absent (or damaged, or destroyed), in addition to providing some flavor to the 'Mech.


Additionally, removing the actuators wouldn't really help with the KGC-0000, as the AC/20s are actually mounted primarily in the side-torsi with the extra criticals bleeding over into the arms (as seen on the KGC-0000 record sheet), which is the reverse of the situation with the KGC-000's guns (as seen on the KGC-000 record sheet).
As such, the KGC-0000 is unworkable without crit-splitting, and the next variant in the BT timeline is ComStar's "Clanbuster" variant (the KGC-001), which doesn't appear until the Battle of Tukayyid takes place (though, at least it doesn't have to be concerned about the crit-splitting issue).

So do you live entirely by canon, and therefore just look for reasons things CAN'T work, or do you try to find work arounds?

Kind of curious, because of late you seem to be more a kill joy than keeper of lore.

And btw, if you can reasonable show he how the KGC is gonna carry Anything in the claws the canon art shows, I would be curious. Or how a mech of said body design is gonna climb ANYTHING whether it has 4 actuators per arm, or 20. And how much climbing and carrying do mechs do in MWO? How much hand to hand, and how exacly will the dice roll work if they do include melee? When are thrown weapons being introduced? Drop and dangle?

OK, so as the game MWO exists, the hand actuators, regardless of TT "usefulness" (which is rule doable, but anything game master will laugh you out of the game trying to climb or dangle drop in a KGC.. There are points where common sense override rules.) are essential to making a working KGC how?

Take a deep breath, I can reference and cut and paste TT til I'm blue in the face too. But we are not talking TT, we are talking MWO, which has already taken quite liberal departure from TT where they felt it actually improved the play experience as a FPS video game. And THAT is what many of us are trying to do, Find ways to make things work, not be obstacles to solutions.

Being the resident Aspie, I thought I would be the overly literal one. *massages temples and gets some booze*

[Strum Wealh]

The bulleted list was meant to demonstrate that the statements "since the hands ONLY acted as shields for the "delicate AC workings" anyhow, the need for hand actuators is technically moot" and "a mechanic that in the case of the KGC literally added NOTHING in TT anyhow" were substantially and demonstrably false.

The KGC's hands/pincers, while certainly not as dexterous as the hands of an Atlas, wouldn't be entirely incapable of holding at least some objects; several real-world robot pincers (including this one, this one, or this one) aren't too far off, even if they are rather skeletal by comparison to the BT artwork.
(Though, if we go solely by the BT artwork, a goodly number of 'Mechs that aren't Unseen - and even some of those! - would even be able to walk, much run or less engage in combat! )

Aside from the previously-mentioned possibilities for making the KGC's actuators (such as affecting the rate at which a 'Mech could stand after a knockdown, or affecting it's ability to take and move the objective in any "capture/steal the flag/cargo/whatever" gametype, or affecting the amount of damage it could inflict with a melee attack (with melee being something that we know PGI does, or at least did, have intent of implementing)), it also maintains the integrity of the design, just as with the other 'Mechs that have retained their Hand Actuators (in spite of the several threads that kvetched about even that).
(Also, one would be little surprised, I would imagine, that posts were made almost immediately after Heavy Metal was released that were asking for the Hand Actuator to be removed specifically to allow for a triple-PPC arm to complement the Gauss Rifle in the other arm... )

There is also the simple fact that, at the end of it all, a KGC without the hand or lower arm actuators simply isn't a KGC-000, KGC-0000, or KGC-010, but an entirely new and separate custom variant (as much so as any LosTech-heavy stock Star League 'Mech versus its stock Succession Wars downgrade counterpart(s)) originating from PGI - and the slippery-slope that would open up is something that, frankly, should very much be avoided.

That being said, I'm not opposed to the King Crab itself (and even voted "yes" on the poll), but I rather strongly believe that it (and every other 'Mech, for that matter) should not be implemented unless and until it can be implemented correctly - full actuator sets and crit-split ACs and all - and that it should not receive any special treatment (which also happens to be consistent with my (slightly less unpopular, it seems) stance that a certain "forest lupine" should not receive special treatment with regard to the locations of its missile launchers).

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 10 August 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

The bulleted list was meant to demonstrate that the statements "since the hands ONLY acted as shields for the "delicate AC workings" anyhow, the need for hand actuators is technically moot" and "a mechanic that in the case of the KGC literally added NOTHING in TT anyhow" were substantially and demonstrably false.

The KGC's hands/pincers, while certainly not as dexterous as the hands of an Atlas, wouldn't be entirely incapable of holding at least some objects; several real-world robot pincers (including this one, this one, or this one) aren't too far off, even if they are rather skeletal by comparison to the BT artwork.
(Though, if we go solely by the BT artwork, a goodly number of 'Mechs that aren't Unseen - and even some of those! - would even be able to walk, much run or less engage in combat! )

Aside from the previously-mentioned possibilities for making the KGC's actuators (such as affecting the rate at which a 'Mech could stand after a knockdown, or affecting it's ability to take and move the objective in any "capture/steal the flag/cargo/whatever" gametype, or affecting the amount of damage it could inflict with a melee attack (with melee being something that we know PGI does, or at least did, have intent of implementing)), it also maintains the integrity of the design, just as with the other 'Mechs that have retained their Hand Actuators (in spite of the several threads that kvetched about even that).
(Also, one would be little surprised, I would imagine, that posts were made almost immediately after Heavy Metal was released that were asking for the Hand Actuator to be removed specifically to allow for a triple-PPC arm to complement the Gauss Rifle in the other arm... )

There is also the simple fact that, at the end of it all, a KGC without the hand or lower arm actuators simply isn't a KGC-000, KGC-0000, or KGC-010, but an entirely new and separate custom variant (as much so as any LosTech-heavy stock Star League 'Mech versus its stock Succession Wars downgrade counterpart(s)) originating from PGI - and the slippery-slope that would open up is something that, frankly, should very much be avoided.

That being said, I'm not opposed to the King Crab itself (and even voted "yes" on the poll), but I rather strongly believe that it (and every other 'Mech, for that matter) should not be implemented unless and until it can be implemented correctly - full actuator sets and crit-split ACs and all - and that it should not receive any special treatment (which also happens to be consistent with my (slightly less unpopular, it seems) stance that a certain "forest lupine" should not receive special treatment with regard to the locations of its missile launchers).

2750 TRO
[color=#000000]The King Crab carries 16 tons of Ferro-Fibrous Armor, with no weak points in its protection. Its secondary weapons systems are the long-range missile launchers in the left torso and the large laser in the right, but its primary weapons are in its huge, handless arms. These are twin Deathgiver Autocannon/20s, among the most potent weapons ever created. [/color]

3039 TRO
"because the autocannons are mounted in reinforced arms, the designers also included claw-like PROTECTIVE HOUSINGS for the weapon barrels. The covers actually open and close in combat, an effect that gives them the appearance of pincers or claws, a characteristic for which the mech is known- and named."

So...... hmmmm which one states they are functional hand actuators for grasping? On top of all the art which shows the cannon protruding so far into the "law region that it literally could NOT grasp anything because the barrel is obstructing the way.






also, it is CERTAINLY no more canon breaking and stretching than 1.4 DHS, Double armor, moving leg and rear mounted weapons to the front, etc. Where is your outrage for these horrible non-canon ideas? Because it LITERALLY has zero effect on the mechanics of the mech. The only thing remotely actually changed, except in your mind, is the location of a few crits. Period. And no, that does not "make it an entirely new mech".


anyhow...... for those like myself, more interested in finding ways to get eh mech INTO the game, instead of trying with all our might to find reasons to keep it out, in the relatively near future, I am hoping to post something to whet the appetite of all you KCG lovers out there, something of a collaboration. Stay tuned, gentle viewers. The King Crab WILL return.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 August 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Zervziel]

I've been asking for the King Crab ever since I heard of MW:O. The King has never appeared in a mechwarrior game to date and it's high time for it to appear in one, preferably MWO.

The KGC has plenty of disadvantages to go with it so it's not like it'd be some game breaking beast. It's freaking huge! It's side torsoes would be pretty big targets. On top of that I can't imagine a larger target for plunging LRM fire.

Finally the King has a very unique look, something I'd love to see in game over the generic humanoid mechs we've had so far. Hell, I'd down right pay for this mech.

As for the crab, I'd love to see it in the game. Sure it'd be a bit broken with the current energy weapon meta, but it'd be a far nicer choice that the damn Kintaro!

[Bishop Steiner]

Look everyone! I'm a King Crab with Proper Hand Actuators!!! Look at all the useful things I can do with them in MWO, like have a spot of tea.......


Hand on mechs is fine, They may only be for fluff in MWO, but worrying about the hand actuators on a King Crab is about as silly as... well, that picture.

[Zervziel]

That's not true, the KCG could also tip it's hat to other mechs. Not with the ease of mechs with actual hands, mind you.

As it is, I don't see what the fuss is about. I mean people talk about how game breaking two AC20s would be. I'm sorry but are we playing the same game? I seem to remember the Jagerbomb's biggest advantage was being able to use two AC20s while running about at 80kph. The King is a 100 ton beast, a speedy King Crab would be lucky to break 50 kph.

Not too mention the heat nerf on dual AC 20s. The King's armor and proper heat management would help out a lot.

Edited by Zervziel, 10 August 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[Utilyan]

I'll take a King Crab cause I love The Octonauts crab mech. The GUP-D

:::::starts hitting the high hat::::::


CREATURE REPORT! CREATURE REPORT!!!!

FACTS!!!!!!

King Crab has two big clawed guns........check, check, check.....

Its enough to fry your buns.......check, check, check....

King Crab is a 100 ton mech.......CREATURE REPORT CREATURE REPORT!!!

When the others see they split......CREATURE REPORT CREATURE REPORT!!!

The King Crab is huge and slow.......check, check, check......

Whatever it fights it blows...... DANCE BREAK!

::: Clap-da clap-da clap clap........::::

GO KING CRAB! GO KING CRAB! GO KING CRAB!!!!!!

[SgtMagor]

where waiting for the return of the King!

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

So...... hmmmm which one states they are functional hand actuators for grasping?

Neither (nor any of the other BT materials, as far as I can find) indicates, either explicitly or implicitly, that it can't.

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Look everyone! I'm a King Crab with Proper Hand Actuators!!! Look at all the useful things I can do with them in MWO, like have a spot of tea...

... or make a two-handed shove (if/when melee and knockdowns are (re)implemented)...
... or punch/jab (if/when melee is implemented)...
... or stand up more quickly than a 'Mech lacking hands and LAAs (if/when knockdowns are re-implemented, and if/when hands/LAAs are made a factor in standing speed (as they should be! ))...
... or grab an enemy 'Mech by the arm or leg with one claw while the other is open with the gun barrel pressed against the opponent's rear armor, or the windshield (Why doesn't that ever happen in the novels?! ), or hold the opponent in place while one or more friendly units lay waste to the captive enemy (One can dream, yes? And again, why isn't that ever depicted in BT media, even though the gameplay rules would actually allow for it? )...

In retrospect, perhaps I've been a bit... overly-quarrelsome... with regard to de-clawing the King Crab.
As previously indicated, I believe that finally starting to alter critical space allocations and placements for non-Hero 'Mechs sets a bad and dangerous precedent, and should be both opposed and avoided.
(And, yes, I would have greatly preferred to see alternate, more-true-to-BT implementations of such things as the DHS and recycle times (which would have gone hand-in-hand with a few other things)... or, at least, more concrete reasons why those things couldn't be done.)

Also...

Bishop Steiner, on 10 August 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The only thing remotely actually changed, except in your mind, is the location of a few crits. Period. And no, that does not "make it an entirely new mech".

I indicated that such a significant change (and it is indeed a significant one, considering the abilities BT imparts as a function of having said actuators, and what is lost as a result of their absence or destruction) would result in "an entirely new and separate custom variant" (as in, it would no longer be a KGC-000 or KGC-0000, but a KGC-xxxx), which is a very different notion from 'make it an entirely new mech' (phrasing which implies "no longer a KGC").
As such, it would be greatly appreciated if you would actually use the same phrasing if/when quoting (or implying such) me in the future.

That being said, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for any previous aggression (real or perceived) on my part in this thread, and to try for a more... easy-going... continuation of the conversation.

So, to (re)start on a brighter note: see what I happened to find on YouTube!
(Granted, it's not (to the best of my knowledge) actually related to MWO in any way, but still... )

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 August 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Khobai]

Yes king crabs should be added because we need a mech that can finally do quad UAC/5s

[Sug]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

PGI knows that a dual-Gauss capable assault mech would break their heat scale system in half, though, so it probably won't happen.

Sucks because there are 3 available right now. King Crab, Devastator, Pillager.

[Utilyan]

I know i've seen this thing in a alternate reality in MWO........Great in open spaces vs other mechs.........but like worst shot then a cataphract shooting everything next to you..........

I can imagine myself peek over the ridge in frozen city and alpha the ground.....

I'd still take it.

Just on account that it doesn't look humanoid we so need this mech. You know its gotta have at least 3 ballistics on each arm......pob ought to have 8 on each arm.

16 ballistics 1 energy 1 missle


And the first thing i'm gonna do with it is put MGs and flamers....... (i do this with all my mechs)


Edit MOAR ballistics

Edited by Utilyan, 11 August 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[FupDup]

Sug, on 11 August 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Sucks because there are 3 available right now. King Crab, Devastator, Pillager.

And a Victor variant (leg MGs moved up to torso).

[Byzan]

I know the mechs are PGI's bread and butter but I gope at some point they focus on content other than mechs. More game types, co-operative PvE content and missions. More Maps and game modes.

I'd like to see stuff like that more than anything else. Mech selection maks the game interesting now, other content will make the game interesting for years to come. The game modes and map selections in the game currently dont really have much longevity

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 11 August 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

And a Victor variant (leg MGs moved up to torso).

which only REALLY demonstrates the need for sized hardpoints to keep mechs from getting totally metaraped and abused far beyond what their designs were intended for.

I'm the VTR {Noble MechWarrior} off the forums, and am happy that version didn't make it, because I don't really see any reason to feed teh ez-mode derp road for the so-called pro-gamers who can only play cheeze.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 August 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

which only REALLY demonstrates the need for sized hardpoints to keep mechs from getting totally metaraped and abused far beyond what their designs were intended for.

I'm the VTR {Noble MechWarrior} off the forums, and am happy that version didn't make it, because I don't really see any reason to feed teh ez-mode derp road for the so-called pro-gamers who can only play cheeze.

I'm all for hardpoint sizes to make mechs have distinctive roles/flavors, but sized HPs aren't going to solve "metarape." You solve metarape by making it so that every weapon has definitive counters to it. When you have  "jack of all trades and a master of everything" type weapons, then things get wonky and metarape occurs. Weapons need weaknesses here in an online FPS environment, even if FASA didn't give those weapons weaknesses in classic Battletech.

Edited by FupDup, 12 August 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 12 August 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

I'm all for hardpoint sizes to make mechs have distinctive roles/flavors, but sized HPs aren't going to solve "metarape." You solve metarape by making it so that every weapon has definitive counters to it. When you have "jack of all trades and a master of everything" type weapons, then things get wonky and metarape occurs. Weapons need weaknesses here in an online FPS environment, even if FASA didn't give those weapons weaknesses in classic Battletech.

When a Stalker physically CAN'T mount 6 PPC, but only 2 and 4 smaller energy weapons, due to hard point sizes, you also reduce metarape. Because bang for buck, if you can fit it and use it, a high damage pinpoint weapon is ALWAYS preferable to several smaller weapons. ALWAYS. And the only way to "balance" that in the weapons removes the actual advantages for spending that mass and heat.

Sized hardpoints means that Stalker could now run 6 mediumd lasers, or 2 ppc/ large laser and 4 mediums. Seems like Meta just got unraped.

Oh, that would also mean the VTRs, HGNs and CTF-3Ds suddenly wouldn't be slinging 1 Gauss and 2-3 PPC either. Cause they couldn't.
(I did have a long discussion going about appropriate use of hardpoints, where one could spend TWO small Hardpoints to upgrade to a Large Hard point. Even doing this, you might get 4 PPCs on a stalker, but that is it. Add in the heat scaling, and it's not such a big deal anymore.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 August 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

When a Stalker physically CAN'T mount 6 PPC, but only 2 and 4 smaller energy weapons, due to hard point sizes, you also reduce metarape. Because bang for buck, if you can fit it and use it, a high damage pinpoint weapon is ALWAYS preferable to several smaller weapons. ALWAYS. And the only way to "balance" that in the weapons removes the actual advantages for spending that mass and heat.

Sized hardpoints means that Stalker could now run 6 mediumd lasers, or 2 ppc/ large laser and 4 mediums. Seems like Meta just got unraped.

Oh, that would also mean the VTRs, HGNs and CTF-3Ds suddenly wouldn't be slinging 1 Gauss and 2-3 PPC either. Cause they couldn't.
(I did have a long discussion going about appropriate use of hardpoints, where one could spend TWO small Hardpoints to upgrade to a Large Hard point. Even doing this, you might get 4 PPCs on a stalker, but that is it. Add in the heat scaling, and it's not such a big deal anymore.

Hardpoints don't actually change the effectiveness of specific weapons, though. For a sized HP system to work to the fullest of its potential, there can't be any "jack of all trades and a master of everything" type weapons or else the mech that can hold the most of that weapon becomes the new metarape.

To reiterate, I'm completely in favor of HP sizes for variant/chassis variety; I just think we need to balance the weapons at the same time. There are some wacky mechs from TT that come stock with enough capacity to hold the current metarape weapons, most deviously the Devastator (dual Gauss + PPCs!), and others such as the Warhawk (quad PPCs), King Crab (dual Gauss in place of AC/40), Annihilator (can prolly hold up to quad Gauss depending on how strict the system is, because the LB 10-X is 6 slots and Gauss is 7; not a very big difference), and Thunder Hawk (triple Gauss!). For mechs like that to be balanced, the individual weapons of PPC and Gauss need to balanced so that the mechs capable of boating them don't get out of hand.


TL;DR: Weapon balance and sized hardpoints don't work very well if kept separate. Weapon balance without hardpoints results in the mechs with better hitboxes and stuff being top tier, and hardpoints without balanced weapons will end up like MW4 where mechs that had more ERLL, ERPPC, and/or Gauss were the best. The two systems need to be intertwined. They compliment each other.



PS: Not to go too-far off topic, but my own HP system would use a combination of critical slots and hardpoints (# of total weapons you can fit within your slots)(as opposed to "small/medium/large"). For example, maybe a K2 might have 4 ballistic slots with 2 hardpoints in each side torso. Energy would be 4 slots per arm (should be able to hold a Binary Laser Cannon, when/if those get added) with 2 hardpoints, and 2 slots + 1 hardpoint per side torso. This allows for a pretty good amount of customization options while still keeping the loadout from doing anything too crazy.

Edited by FupDup, 12 August 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 12 August 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Hardpoints don't actually change the effectiveness of specific weapons, though. For a sized HP system to work to the fullest of its potential, there can't be any "jack of all trades and a master of everything" type weapons or else the mech that can hold the most of that weapon becomes the new metarape.

To reiterate, I'm completely in favor of HP sizes for variant/chassis variety; I just think we need to balance the weapons at the same time. There are some wacky mechs from TT that come stock with enough capacity to hold the current metarape weapons, most deviously the Devastator (dual Gauss + PPCs!), and others such as the Warhawk (quad PPCs), King Crab (dual Gauss in place of AC/40), Annihilator (can prolly hold up to quad Gauss depending on how strict the system is, because the LB 10-X is 6 slots and Gauss is 7; not a very big difference), and Thunder Hawk (triple Gauss!). For mechs like that to be balanced, the individual weapons of PPC and Gauss need to balanced so that the mechs capable of boating them don't get out of hand.


TL;DR: Weapon balance and sized hardpoints don't work very well if kept separate. Weapon balance without hardpoints results in the mechs with better hitboxes and stuff being top tier, and hardpoints without balanced weapons will end up like MW4 where mechs that had more ERLL, ERPPC, and/or Gauss were the best. The two systems need to be intertwined. They compliment each other.



PS: Not to go too-far off topic, but my own HP system would use a combination of critical slots and hardpoints (# of total weapons you can fit within your slots)(as opposed to "small/medium/large"). For example, maybe a K2 might have 4 ballistic slots with 2 hardpoints in each side torso. Energy would be 3-4 slots per arm with 2 hardpoints, and 2 slots + 1 hardpoint per side torso. This allows for a pretty good amount of customization options while still keeping the loadout fairly close to stock.

problem is, IMO overll the weapons are mostly fine (aside form the LB-X and flamer). It's the boating that is the issue.