28 replies to this topic

[mazza11]

Yes pinpoint accuracy is the larger issue at present, but the way PGI has explained the issue in trying to implement this into the game as being to difficult at the present time. And yes if pinpoint wasn't an issue then your suggestion would help, but I believe the weight hardpoint limitation is the more viable solution, especially since you would see a massive drop in high pinpoint alpha builds instantly, although there would be a fair bit of rage since the meta would change dramaticly.

Although I would still love to see a variation of of same weapons, it would had an increase weapon diversity into the game.

[Artgathan]

Unfortunately the problem with an actual hardpoint limitation system (IE: anything of the Small/Medium/Large Variety) is that it will effectively reduce the number of viable battlemechs. Players will gravitate toward the mechs that can carry the most OP weapons loadout (just as they do now).

Pinpoint accuracy in and of itself isn't really that much of a problem. It's the combination of pinpoint + convergence + high instant alphas that causes problems. This solution would break some of the "high instant alpha" part of that equation.

[Dreadp1r4te]

I've been saying something like this for so long... we NEED a viable hardpoint limitation system; the pinpoint high-alpha builds are entirely too ridiculous. Those of you that disagree, saying all these ultra-high alpha builds aren't a problem, please feel free to go somewhere else.

Splitting damage from weapons like PPCs into 2 x 5 or AC20s into 2 x 10 or 4 x 5 would definitely make a difference, as the target could easily torso twist or move behind terrain, etc, avoiding or dispersing the rest of the damage. It would also make large and large pulse lasers themselves more viable (as a primary weapon) as they already do this, in a way.

[Mycrus]

I'm a proponent for sized hardpoints... There is no reason why a spider should be walking around with an erppc...

I'm for customization - but if anything can mount anything, what is the point of having different variants, chassis anyway...

Ppc fest won't happen if only mechs like the k2 and awesomes were capable of mounting such...

Piggy band aided this with ghost heat and geometry...

[CrashieJ]

Artgathan, on 22 August 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Sure, you can put an LRM-20 or SRM-6 in the Raven-3L's left arm, but it won't be combat effective (since the missiles will come out one at a time). PGI has proven that they can make flexible hardpoints (switch the SRM racks to LRM racks on a Highlander's arm and see the difference), so this sort of feature is intentional.

This system has prevented the effective use of various builds (such as 3 X SRM6 Victors, 4 X SRM6 Kintaro-19, and others). My question is: why has PGI limited the effectiveness of one type of weapon (missiles) while not doing so for the others?

If they can attempt to enforce certain builds (the single missile port is clearly to promote the use of NARC, various other missile racks lend themselves to specific launchers) through this for missiles, why can't it be done for other weapons?

simple: to prevent cookie cutter builds and create a system of risk and reward, you can put an LRM 20 in a Narc slot (RISK) but can be rewarded with low heat damage (REWARD). But in doing so you ended up using them for an unintended purpose, you basically broke the warranty.

Quote

You want an AC/20 in your Blackjack? 2 shots for 10 damage (or 4 shots for 5 damage!).

Actually Breaking down ballistics like AC20s and AC10s to fire Multiple rounds instead of 1-shot wonders is actually the smartest idea I've seen around here and make way for Balanced Rotary AC weapons and higher tier UACs

[Wyest]

Limiting the hardpoints like the OP suggested would change nothing in the current meta.

All that will happen is that instead of having X many 2PPC+Gauss mechs, you have X-Y (Y being however many can't boat with it after the change) many. You're not changing the meta. You're changing which mech's the meta applies to best, and limiting the effectiveness to those few.

That is all.

Net result will be some nerfed chassis for specific weapons, especially if you're splitting the fire based on chassis or type. Not only will you confuse people, but nobody will bother with anything but optimal builds, for alpha or dps, just like now.

Having said that, I'm still in favour of AC's being burst-fire weapons, but I just think if you're doing it, do it to all chassis or don't bother.

PPC's... should have a simpler counter. Heat. Pity the heat system is getting to the point it requires calculus to figure out what it's doing, but that's a separate issue.

[Artgathan]

Wyest, on 22 August 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Limiting the hardpoints like the OP suggested would change nothing in the current meta.

All that will happen is that instead of having X many 2PPC+Gauss mechs, you have X-Y (Y being however many can't boat with it after the change) many. You're not changing the meta. You're changing which mech's the meta applies to best, and limiting the effectiveness to those few.

That is all.

Net result will be some nerfed chassis for specific weapons, especially if you're splitting the fire based on chassis or type. Not only will you confuse people, but nobody will bother with anything but optimal builds, for alpha or dps, just like now.

Having said that, I'm still in favour of AC's being burst-fire weapons, but I just think if you're doing it, do it to all chassis or don't bother.

PPC's... should have a simpler counter. Heat. Pity the heat system is getting to the point it requires calculus to figure out what it's doing, but that's a separate issue.

This sort of change would actually affect all mechs, and since no mech currently in the game comes stock with PPC and Gauss, it would disrupt the meta significantly. Sure, you could grab the AWS-8Q which comes stock with 3 PPC, but it's an Awesome (disadvantage #1) and you'll have to deal with Ghost Heat (disadvantage #2).

Suggesting that people won't bother with anything but optimal builds after this change implies that people don't already do this. Therefore, this effectively changes nothing.

I agree it could be confusing, but helpful tooltips in UI2.0 could be used to help ease the system. That, or having easy rules (you put an AC/20 on a Heavy mech it doesn't belong on, it fires 3 shots. Mediums fire 4, lights fire 5, assaults fire 2) in place could help ease the transition. It surely would be less complex than the Ghost Heat system.

[Varaxus]

KuruptU4Fun, on 22 August 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

They're not going to open up classification (E/B/M) locations like Clan Omni-mech's have. IS has to differentiate themselves in that aspect. It does balance itself out somewhat because Clan Stars are limited to 5 mechs where IS lances have 6.

Sorry but this is bugging me. IS lances are 4 mechs each with 3 lances forming a company. Clans have 5 man stars is correct

[KuruptU4Fun]

Varaxus, on 23 August 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Sorry but this is bugging me. IS lances are 4 mechs each with 3 lances forming a company. Clans have 5 man stars is correct

Yeah we established that, I should stop posting right when I first wake up....