41 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

No. Even LORE allows large weapons on small mechs stock.

I support sized hardpoints based on the stock config. Large and Small.

Small: TAG, SL, ML, MG, AC2, AC5, NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10.
Large: LL, PPC, AC10, AC20, Gauss, SRM6, LRM15, LRM20 + all smalls.

*Includes all weapon variants (er, pulse, streak, uac, lbx, etc).

This way light mechs that DO carry large weapons remain unique and are not outclassed by another variant or chassis.

[Crann]

Mookan, on 03 October 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

... but it would really cause classes to focus on their range and role on the battlefield.

OP is probably right about this one thing. It may provoke people to rethink their battlefield strategies as a team.. But then again we all know PUGs would just turn into 24 assault mechs humping each other in the middle of the caustic valley hot tub..

[Roland]

What WOULD be useful, would be restricting the size of specific hardpoints.

For instance, a given hardpoint could have a maximum number of slots that it could hold.

This would allow you to support flexibility in mech building, while still preserving some character for the actual variants.

A hunchback, for example, would have a very large ballistic hardpoint in its hunch, allowing it to carry an AC20... But the ballistic hardpoints in a Cat-K2, originally designed to hold machine guns, could be restricted to only maybe 5 slots each, so you couldn't pack really large AC's into them.

In reality, such a change probably would have eliminated the need to implement a lot of the over-engineered balance changes that they've added since closed beta.

[mania3c]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

What WOULD be useful, would be restricting the size of specific hardpoints.

For instance, a given hardpoint could have a maximum number of slots that it could hold.

This would allow you to support flexibility in mech building, while still preserving some character for the actual variants.

A hunchback, for example, would have a very large ballistic hardpoint in its hunch, allowing it to carry an AC20... But the ballistic hardpoints in a Cat-K2, originally designed to hold machine guns, could be restricted to only maybe 5 slots each, so you couldn't pack really large AC's into them.

In reality, such a change probably would have eliminated the need to implement a lot of the over-engineered balance changes that they've added since closed beta.

It would also reduce numbers of played variants and mechs..

Honestly... I prefer their approach with modules to make mechs and variants different..yet not limiting customization ... while this could lead to same problem - make many mechs less useful ..at least..customization will not be butchered..but more open..

[Tonberry King]

I really don't see the point in a Light mech pretending to be Heavy. I saw a Raven with an AC20 on it, traveling slowly, and all I could think was... you could just do two AC20's on a better mech of the same speed, more armor, better heatsinks, why try to cram it all into something small?

...Is it a personal thing?

[Roland]

mania3c, on 08 January 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

It would also reduce numbers of played variants and mechs..

Not necessarily, because you could size hardpoints in such a way as to give all those different variants useful benefits over each other.

As it stands, the stock loadouts of various variants ends up making it such that the best variants generally can do what the bad varants can do in terms of carrying weapons.

There are tons of "garbage" variants in the game currently, that aren't really used at all. Having hardpoints restricted by size could actually make them more useful, by limiting the capabilities of the variants which are currently now the only ones used.

[mania3c]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Not necessarily, because you could size hardpoints in such a way as to give all those different variants useful benefits over each other.

As it stands, the stock loadouts of various variants ends up making it such that the best variants generally can do what the bad varants can do in terms of carrying weapons.

There are tons of "garbage" variants in the game currently, that aren't really used at all. Having hardpoints restricted by size could actually make them more useful, by limiting the capabilities of the variants which are currently now the only ones used.

I guess we just prefer different things.. while I agree there are many less useful variants..I would rather make them more useful by widening customization.. not limiting customization within more useful variants.. but two people, two different opinions..

[Thejuggla]

Definently not, as others have said hard point sizing would be better.

[Vegetal Maldito]

I'm with Roland on this one.

See this example, the Awesome and the Stalker.

Speaking only from the logic point of view, no one would want the AWS, in fact, no one actually wants right now, except for emotional reasons, simply because the Stalker can do everything the AWS does better.

If the Stalker had energy hardpoints in such a way that the biggest weapon was a large laser or pulse, the Awesome would have something unique: A 3 PPC stomping capability.

It's also not unprecedented, MW4 did that and in my opinion, it worked wonders.

Some say this would restrict variety in builds, but it's just the contrary. This would make each mech more unique, having it's own flavor...

Edited by Vegetal Maldito, 08 January 2014 - 10:48 PM.

[Slepnir]

Mookan, on 03 October 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

The Battletech table top rules have held up ok for decades but I feel it's time to revise how weapons are handled with regards to weight class.

If weapon size was restricted to weight class it would help to really define what each class does on the battlefield and the range they fight at. The current rules where internal space is the same regardless of mech is an old and outdated concept, a Commando should not have as much internal space as an Atlas. I understand that weight limit and that smaller mechs are more likely to have Endo steel and FF armour are limiting factors to load out but it still doesn't stop a light from packing PPC's or multiple medium lasers.

Light mechs should only be able to mount the smaller weapons, small lasers, MG, A/C 2, SRM 2, TAG, NARC, Streak 2 etc. This would define them as short range fighters and spotters.

Medium mechs can mount medium wepons and lower, medium lasers, A/C 5, LRM 5, SRM 4 etc. This would give them a better short range punch than lights and allow them to be limited range support.

Heavy mechs in turn could mount large lasers, A/C 10, LRM 15, SRM 6, PPC, Gauss etc.

And the hardest hitting wepons would be limited to Assults, A/C 20, LRM 20 etc.

I know this would render a lot of official variants void and limit player customisation choices but it would really cause classes to focus on their range and role on the battlefield.

I think what your looking for is what MW4 did to prevent boating large weapons and the need for ghost heat. both a hardpoint restriction and a CRIT SLOT restriction-IE you pull out a machinegun the only other ballistic weapon able to fit in that hardpoint is an AC2, same for lasers, you cannot put a PPC in a medium laser slot. it would lead to a lot more diversity in mech builds and a lot less high alpha meta or the need for ghost heat.

Edited by Slepnir, 09 January 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[Alex Warden]

i have a feeling that i read this whole thread already...

[SpartanFiredog317]

Mookan, on 03 October 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

The Battletech table top rules have held up ok for decades but I feel it's time to revise how weapons are handled with regards to weight class. If weapon size was restricted to weight class it would help to really define what each class does on the battlefield and the range they fight at. The current rules where internal space is the same regardless of mech is an old and outdated concept, a Commando should not have as much internal space as an Atlas. I understand that weight limit and that smaller mechs are more likely to have Endo steel and FF armour are limiting factors to load out but it still doesn't stop a light from packing PPC's or multiple medium lasers. Light mechs should only be able to mount the smaller weapons, small lasers, MG, A/C 2, SRM 2, TAG, NARC, Streak 2 etc. This would define them as short range fighters and spotters. Medium mechs can mount medium wepons and lower, medium lasers, A/C 5, LRM 5, SRM 4 etc. This would give them a better short range punch than lights and allow them to be limited range support. Heavy mechs in turn could mount large lasers, A/C 10, LRM 15, SRM 6, PPC, Gauss etc. And the hardest hitting wepons would be limited to Assults, A/C 20, LRM 20 etc. I know this would render a lot of official variants void and limit player customisation choices but it would really cause classes to focus on their range and role on the battlefield.

My Friend, in the current state of MWO... that has been relatively static for the past almost two years.... there is only ONE role on the battlefield... and that is to kill thy enemy

When Scouting means more than just spotting for LRMroy Jenkins, and a base is more than a lased square... THEN we can talk about 'roles'


.... Also, it takes a VERY skilled pilot to make a light with anything bigger than a LL more than a nuisance

as a matter of fact, the average pilot in a commando with 3 streaks will be a much bigger threat than your typical heavy weapon light.

Heck in the current meta you could just throw a TAG on a ECM spider and with modest LRM coordination decimate.

[SgtMagor]

nuke this thread, nuke it till it glows

Edited by SgtMagor, 09 January 2014 - 05:03 AM.

[mania3c]

Vegetal Maldito, on 08 January 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

I'm with Roland on this one.

See this example, the Awesome and the Stalker.

Speaking only from the logic point of view, no one would want the AWS, in fact, no one actually wants right now, except for emotional reasons, simply because the Stalker can do everything the AWS does better.

If the Stalker had energy hardpoints in such a way that the biggest weapon was a large laser or pulse, the Awesome would have something unique: A 3 PPC stomping capability.

It's also not unprecedented, MW4 did that and in my opinion, it worked wonders.

Some say this would restrict variety in builds, but it's just the contrary. This would make each mech more unique, having it's own flavor...

I say..let them introduce their module systems ...it has better potential than some hardpoint size/limiting system.. of course..they could still screw it..but hopefully not..

[Roland]

mania3c, on 08 January 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

I guess we just prefer different things.. while I agree there are many less useful variants..I would rather make them more useful by widening customization.. not limiting customization within more useful variants.. but two people, two different opinions..

I think that if you think more deeply about it, you'd find that ultimate freedom of customization really isn't freedom at all. It ends up distilling the mech design process down to a very small handful of totally optimized configurations.

To see this in practice, you can look at older mechwarrior titles where mechs were just "gunbags" without any hardpoint system.

The result was not more variety in mech design. The result was the opposite. A few "best" configurations developed, and then that was all you could run because they were clearly superior in all ways.

By introducing restrictions to mech design, you actually enable a greater variety in fielded designs, because you eliminate the ability to just make ideal builds using simple principles. Instead, players are left with more difficult choices about what they want their mechs to do. No single mech can just be the best at everything in that system, so you end up seeing different builds which perform different roles better.... Like a mech which can mount a particular weapons config that other mechs can't, but which has bad hitboxes, or stuff like that.

Hardpoint sizes, while restricting the theoretical variety of builds, actually would expand the PRACTICAL variety of builds.

[mania3c]

Roland, on 09 January 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

I think that if you think more deeply about it, you'd find that ultimate freedom of customization really isn't freedom at all. It ends up distilling the mech design process down to a very small handful of totally optimized configurations.

To see this in practice, you can look at older mechwarrior titles where mechs were just "gunbags" without any hardpoint system.

The result was not more variety in mech design. The result was the opposite. A few "best" configurations developed, and then that was all you could run because they were clearly superior in all ways.

By introducing restrictions to mech design, you actually enable a greater variety in fielded designs, because you eliminate the ability to just make ideal builds using simple principles. Instead, players are left with more difficult choices about what they want their mechs to do. No single mech can just be the best at everything in that system, so you end up seeing different builds which perform different roles better.... Like a mech which can mount a particular weapons config that other mechs can't, but which has bad hitboxes, or stuff like that.

Hardpoint sizes, while restricting the theoretical variety of builds, actually would expand the PRACTICAL variety of builds.

but current customization has enough limits already..it's not like it's ultimate freedom..I agree there has to be balance...but I don't think we are above the threshold, where there is TOO much customization..honestly..there is still too little (in my opinion)..I am all for making mechs more diverse..but I just don't believe reducing customization would help at all..

I am pretty sure it wouldn't help..same builds would be played like today..just less chassis on the battlefield..

[Bagheera]

mania3c, on 09 January 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I am pretty sure it wouldn't help..same builds would be played like today..just less chassis on the battlefield..

Same holds true if the game were only "stock" configurations and there was no mechlab at all. A handful of "viable" variants would be played and the rest would sit shelved.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

A suggestion made by me in September 2013 which follows similar lines.

http://mwomercs.com/...ystems-for-mwo/

Here is the problem as admitted by the Devs, to do such a thing would require a complete redo of the base coding for the game and would cost them more to do then they can afford. They admitted to screwing up and now they have to use band-aid fixes.

[InRev]

FupDup, on 03 October 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

In short, your ideas are bad and you should feel bad. Really bad.

Not empty-quoting.

[cSand]

nubs can't tango so they must limit others

Edited by cSand, 23 March 2014 - 12:30 PM.