56 replies to this topic

[Gray 46rus]

Ghost Badger, on 10 October 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Yup, and in plenty of those there are examples of everything from Frankenmechs to a single outsized weapon on a small chassis.

Proof?
I got diametrically opposite info:

Quote

Faced with the superior range and firepower of the Clan invaders, the Steiner military wanted a light, fast 'Mech with superior long-range firepower. Many design firms offered plans featuring LRM racks and PPC's, but the contract went to Coventry Metal Works. Their design, tagged the BZK-F3 Hollander, eliminated the heat buildup from PPC's and the danger of ammo explosion inherent in LRMs by mounting the massive Poland Main Model A Gauss cannon in the 'Mechs's right torso. This unorthodox design would provide unprecedented firepower in a light 'Mech, enough to take down other light 'Mechs in one shot.

unprecedented means "never done before"

[Gaan Cathal]

Gray 46rus, on 10 October 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

So what's the difference between two 35-ton mechs? Just visuals?If BT submit WH40k fundamental rule "what you see is what you get", you'll never equip Raven with Gauss, because modified this way miniature trivially can't stay still (see my Gauss-Spider 3D compilation 4 posts earlier).

Then I want my armour advantage back on my Raven. I already can't fit a Jenner-sized engine, but a Jenner can fit Raven-levels of armour. If I loose the ability to fit half the weapons in the game, then I want to know that Jenners, Jaegers and Hollanders have cellophane armour compared to me.

[Dawnstealer]

FinsT, on 10 October 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

imho, it'd be best if we'd have BOTH size-restricted hardpoints AND individual crit slots' setups.

And here's why.

To me, it seems utterly ridiculous that currently in MWO, an Atlas can have no more (not-in-the-engine, double) heatsinks installed than a Spider. I mean, Spider is like, TINY, and Atlas is like, HUGE. But, both can have up to 2 double heatsinks installed in each arm, and up to 4 installed in each side torso - i.e. both can install 12 double heatsinks max, no more, no less.

Silly eh?

And since those weigh exactly the same for both Spider and Atlas, we can't even suspect that heatsinks of various size ("class") are used on Spiders and Atlases; if that would be the case, then weight would change too, obviously. Yet it doesn't - a double heatsink is 1 ton for Spiders and Atlases and all other 'mech just the same.


P.S. So we end up having a tiny spider which can mount as many double heatsinks as an Atlas - and then we scratch our head how and why it can be possible. May be Atlases are just spiders with lot of "decorations" put on top of 'em? Eh? It's true? I got it right?

When I first started playing the game, this is exactly what I expected. I was expecting Clan 'mechs would have the advantage of slapping anything in their mechs, while IS mechs would be limited to "Small Ballistic" or "Medium Energy" or "Medium Missile" etc.

It would just prevent some of the dual AC20/Gauss goofyness that's been going around. Seriously, if a Jager fired off two AC20s at once, that thing should either flop over on its back, or blow its arms off.

[Zyllos]

My personal take on sized hardpoints (which is my vote):

• Small
  
  • Energy
    
    • Small Laser
      
    • Small Pulse Laser
      
    • Medium Laser
      
    • Medium Pulse Laser
      
    • Flamer
  • Ballistic
    
    • Machine Gun
      
    • AC/2
  • Missile
    
    • LRM/5
      
    • SRM/2
      
    • SRM/4
      
    • SSRM/2
• Medium
  
  • Energy
    
    • Large Laser
      
    • Large Pulse Laser
      
    • ER Large Laser
  • Ballistic
    
    • AC/5
      
    • UAC/5
      
    • AC/10
      
    • LBX/10
  • Missile
    
    • LRM/10
      
    • LRM/15
      
    • SRM/6
• Large
  
  • Energy
    
    • PPC
      
    • ERPPC
  • Ballistic
    
    • AC/20
      
    • Gauss Rifle
  • Missile
    
    • LRM/20
• NARC and TAG has their own slots, just like ECM.

When equipping a slot, it can take one slot size smaller than categorized. Meaning a Large Ballistic can fit an AC/10 but not an AC/2. This means the "Small" slot is generally only reserved for backup weapons on mechs while "Large" is used for mechs that utilize these slots specifically for larger weapons. "Medium" slots will be the vast majority of hardpoints.

This will allow the Awesome and HBK-4G to retain their uniqueness over other mechs and variants, respectively, while allowing future mechs to be unique in their own right, like the Hollander in the future. It will also keep mechs within their respective settings and uses.

EDIT: Forgot Flamer, so added it to the "Small Energy" slot.

Edited by Zyllos, 10 October 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Zyllos]

Gaan Cathal, on 10 October 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Then I want my armour advantage back on my Raven. I already can't fit a Jenner-sized engine, but a Jenner can fit Raven-levels of armour. If I loose the ability to fit half the weapons in the game, then I want to know that Jenners, Jaegers and Hollanders have cellophane armour compared to me.

Are you not the only 35t mech that can equip ECM, and TAG/NARC with changes to hardpoints (yes, I understand NARC is useless but it could be fixed in the future)?

The Raven loses speed and firepower for ECM.

[Gray 46rus]

Dawnstealer, on 10 October 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Seriously, if a Jager fired off two AC20s at once, that thing should either flop over on its back, or blow its arms off.

In real world, there were a similar problem with early prototypes of Russian BMP-1. Too high caliber canon was tearing the turret from a running gear. Until it was limited to 73-mm smoothbore cannon.

[MustrumRidcully]

I don't care for additional hard point restrictions ,and PGI is in the process of revamping old mechs to adapt the model to fit equipped weapon loadout.

I see also no problem in having 3 mechs that can have the same loads. Mechs are more than the weapons they equip - they have a visual style and some people might prefer the giant humanoid robot, others prefer chicken walkers, some like assymetrically designed mechs, others prefer symmetrically designed mechs and what not.

The current (or less) hard point restrictions mean you can also choose a mech for your visual preference and are not forced into one particular look because you want a particular loadout.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 October 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

The current (or less) hard point restrictions mean you can also choose a mech for your visual preference and are not forced into one particular look because you want a particular loadout.

I want to have a 65t Mech - were I can mount two SRM 4 packs together with a ER-PPC in the left arm and a LBX in the right arm.
Its not possible - but why not? I mean you can mount a Gauss into a Machine Gun slot.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 15 October 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

I want to have a 65t Mech - were I can mount two SRM 4 packs together with a ER-PPC in the left arm and a LBX in the right arm.
Its not possible - but why not? I mean you can mount a Gauss into a Machine Gun slot.

I agree that MW3 construction rules (no hard points) with MW:O model adaptations to fit weapons would be the best. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 October 2013 - 01:15 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 October 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I agree that MW3 construction rules (no hard points) with MW:O model adaptations to fit weapons would be the best. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

Dunno - what will happen when each mechlab modification would be charged? Like it was inMechWarrior 2 Mercs

For example swapping MLAS for any other energy weapon with 1 crit will not cost additional money.
Moving a AC 2 into the MLAS slot will be charged with the costs of AC 2 + 1.000.000 (for typ)
Gauss instead of MG (Cost of Gauss x7)

So you can mount on a Jaeger - DD with 3 ballistic weapon harpoints in each arm:
1 ER.PPC
2 SRM 4s
for additional 4.750.000 for changing the types, crits and numbers of weapons in that location.

Considering the current grind - it would last a long time until you are able to make such a change.
(OmniMechs would not be charged)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 15 October 2013 - 01:25 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 15 October 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Dunno - what will happen when each mechlab modification would be charged? Like it was inMechWarrior 2 Mercs

For example swapping MLAS for any other energy weapon with 1 crit will not cost additional money.
Moving a AC 2 into the MLAS slot will be charged with the costs of AC 2 + 1.000.000 (for typ)
Gauss instead of MG (Cost of Gauss x7)

So you can mount on a Jaeger - DD with 3 ballistic weapon harpoints in each arm:
1 ER.PPC
2 SRM 4s
for additional 4.750.000 for changing the types, crits and numbers of weapons in that location.

Considering the current grind - it would last a long time until you are able to make such a change.
(OmniMechs would not be charged)

If I had made MW:O and thought about this stuff beforehand, I would probably have made modifications cost time or money (your choice).

I think it's now too late for that.

[Gray 46rus]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 October 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

If I had made MW:O and thought about this stuff beforehand, I would probably have made modifications cost time or money (your choice).

I think it's now too late for that.

Maybe late, maybe not. The question is about your opinion, nothing more.

[Karl Streiger]

Gray 46rus, on 21 October 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

Maybe late, maybe not. The question is about your opinion, nothing more.

He can't place his post into your post - neighter can I - because your poll is biased.
I don't think that a Spider should carry a Gauss but I don't t hink that any HP restricted system will chance anything, regarding balance

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 October 2013 - 01:14 AM.

[B E E L Z E B U B]

last thing this game needs is more restrictions.

[CDLord HHGD]

Zyllos, on 10 October 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

My personal take on sized hardpoints (which is my vote):

I prefer only two size categories. Keeps it simple. I also hold to my original idea that a large HP can equip a small weapon, but not so the other way around and that the small HP category should have more options (if not, equal options, never fewer) than the large HP category. That way, lights with large HPs are unique.

[Gray 46rus]

Edited first post

[Prezimonto]

I prefer going in the other direction.

Just require that the AC20 need to go into an area that has 3 ballistic hardpoints. There's a few variants that would need some tweaks, but this is what I think the originally had in mind anyway. This also makes those mechs designed to carry huge weapons something special.

[Wasted Merc]

Karma Police, on 22 October 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

last thing this game needs is more restrictions.

True, dump hardpoints all together is my opinnion, go back to closer to board game rules.

But if they insist on restrictive hardpoints make it more flexible, some of these kinds of things:

a) Change points to crit slots, e.g. 10 energy crit slots instead of 2 hard points

sized hardpoints that can be split up into smaller groups
4 small slots = 2 medium slots = 1 large slot

c) make them movable
the stupid mech i have now has a lasers and balistics in the torso and missiles in the arms wtf, i want direct fire weapons in the arms and self guided in the torso

Once again remove hardpoints, or less restrictions

[xhrit]

Gray 46rus, on 10 October 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

So what's the difference between two 35-ton mechs? Just visuals?

Pretty much, yes. Exterior and interior visuals, visibility, profile, hitboxes, firepoints. Design Quirks - not loadout restrictions.

[Aceramic]

So, Prezimonto... Basically, you want the Jager-DD to be the only 'mech that can carry AC/20's? That's the only 'mech I can think of that has 3 Ballistic hardpoints in a component large enough for an AC/20.

My suggestion? Eliminate hardpoints as they are now. If I want to carry 5 ML on my Cicada 3C instead of one LL, I should be able to. Same tonnage, different uses. Keep the restriction on weapon type per location (IE: A Jager DD can't mount PPCs in the ballistic arm). Likewise, if I want to cram 6 AC/2's in the side torso of my Atlas, and I have the tonnage... Let me? Granted, this creates the issue of certain 'mechs (like Atlai) having variants whose main difference is hard points in the same location, just different numbers... I admit I don't have a solution for this issue typing this on my phone while eating, but I'm sure somebody will think of something soon. (like maybe having every weapon need a certain amount of power, with a limit on how much your 'mech generates)