107 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

Before you read on, this idea assumes that we get rid of ghost heat and heat is entirely reworked. So while some of you might say: "Ghost heat fixed the issue", I personally rather see it gone.

Let's take a Battlemaster with its stock build. Medium lasers, SRM 6, PPC, Machine guns.

Right.

Now, those who keep the machine guns, please raise your hand? Sorry? You take them out and add AC/5s or simply make room for bigger energy weapons?

Interesting. Actually, it's a no brainer and I don't blame you for doing that. When you got 85 tons available to you, you won't waste 2 ballistic slots on MGs, right?

But, what if slots were actually a little more complex than just "ballistic, lasers, missiles".

Now, everyone's thinking "here's another one of those hardpoint sizes thread" Well, yes and no. It's also about making mech refitting a lot less of a trivial affair than it actually is.

Here's my idea of a reworked mechlab. Keep in mind, I haven't thought everything through, so there might be a few less than ideal ideas and some stuff that just don't make sense. If so, don't feel bad to call me out.

So, the "issue" (for me it's an issue), is that when you have available hardpoints, you usually want to make the most of it, which means not wasting it on small arms, unless you can boat many of them. I call this artificial balancing, because PGI gives hardpoints to mechs in a way that a specific build is the most efficient one, while the rest of the possible builds are meh-ish compared to the best build. Example: Triple AC/2 Shadow Hawk (okay, not the most efficient, but not bad). All other builds are okay, but less than ideal. PGI gave it 3 ballistic hardpoints so this build was possible and that's a build you see very often.

YOU CAN START READING HERE IF YOUR FIRST IMPRESSION OF THE OP IS TO TYPE TL;DR

What if you had "weapon slots" that fit the size of the actual stock weapon in there, but you could merge different, identical slots that are present on the same part of the mech so you can fit a bigger weapon?

Back to our Battlemaster: Now, if you want to put AC/5s in there, you actually have to merge your 2 MG slots so the new slot becomes big enough to fit ONLY ONE AC/5. Now, you have to make the decision: Do I want 2 MGs, 2 AC/2s, or 1 AC/5, Ultra-AC/5?

There's actually a compromise now. You can't just put everything in there because you want to. You need to sacrifice the amount of weapons on your mechs if you only want the big stuff, The highlander pilot has to ask himself : "Do I want 2 smaller energy weapons, or 1 bigger (PPC)?" Because you can no longer transform these 2 medium lasers into 2 bigger weapons. The Stalker can merge his medium lasers and still create a 4LL build, so the goal isn't to completely restrict the builds, but to reduce the amount of "high damage pinpoint builds" so a mech doesn't get cored in 2 volleys or less. It also deals with massive LRM boating.

I still haven't decided on how "demerging" is done and if it could be done with bigger stock slots. If we let this happen, it's possible that we get MW4 type of builds all over again and it's not something I want either.

To summarize, I think this suggestion could please both crowd that are for and against hardpoint sizes. It restricts the silliness, but doesn't prevent you from completely changing the weapons on your favorite mech. Feel free to comment (please remain constructive).

Edited by Sybreed, 21 January 2014 - 08:52 PM.

[Necromantion]

An interesting idea, id have to see how it played out as far as play. Thing is larger weapons already kinda force you to do that at times but i get what youre saying

[Tombstoner]

So something like the number of crit slots available for weapons can be mixed and matched for the weapon type. for example converting the 3 crit slots from the ppc on an atlas arm in to one large laser and one medium.... or better yet 3 mediums in each arm. kinda like The hero version.
i never could accept that one ppc was the same as 1 small laser but it is under a hard point only system .
I would prefer this level of flexibility.

but the atlas that has one ac-20 could be converted into a 10x ac-2's is not something i look forward too. also not something people who think the ac-2 is fine as is and not OP.

[Khobai]

I personally think there should just be two sizes of hardpoints: small and large.

small hardpoints: can only mount weapons that take up 1 crit slot or less
large hardpoints: can mount any weapons

I mean how simple is that?

There's no need for a hardpoint system more complex than that. Because the whole point of such a system is to limit PPCs, AC/5s, and AC/20s anyway, which having small/large hardpoints does with simplistic elegance.

Edited by Khobai, 21 January 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

You had me up to the triple AC2 Shawk is considered most efficient.

[Sybreed]

Trauglodyte, on 21 January 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

You had me up to the triple AC2 Shawk is considered most efficient.

yeah not the best example I could think of. Perhaps a dragon with a triple AC/2 build would be more legit?

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

I personally think there should just be two sizes of hardpoints: small and large.

small hardpoints: can only mount weapons that take up 1 crit slot or less
large hardpoints: can mount any weapons

I mean how simple is that?

There's no need for a hardpoint system more complex than that. Because the whole point of such a system is to limit PPCs, AC/5s, and AC/20s anyway, which having small/large hardpoints does with simplistic elegance.

well, because people against hardpoints big argument is that we shouldn't limit builds. My suggestion's goal is to satisfy them too.

[Dudeman3k]

personally. yes, the MW4 weapon limitation was nice. 3 medlasers or one PPC?? decisions decisions.

[lsp]

TLDR but I probably disagree with you. We should be able to mount anything anywhere, because if it where real life I would put whatever the hell I wanted on my mech. And wherever I wanted it, there wouldn't be some fake restrictions holding me back.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

I personally think there should just be two sizes of hardpoints: small and large.

small hardpoints: can only mount weapons that take up 1 crit slot or less
large hardpoints: can mount any weapons

I mean how simple is that?

There's no need for a hardpoint system more complex than that. Because the whole point of such a system is to limit PPCs, AC/5s, and AC/20s anyway, which having small/large hardpoints does with simplistic elegance.

If I were to make a "Generic Big Stompy Robot Games that looks almost like Battletech from afar", this is something I might use, and every mech has the same number of hard points, just distributed differently. And the weapon stats would probably organized in such a manner that you can't fully fill all hard points if you always pick the biggest gun for eahc hard point.

Unfortunately it has to be a "Generic Big Stompy Robot game" because stock mechs might not mesh with the system, and I also don't want to be dragged down by design limitations or concepts of the table top game.

---
But back to the OP's idea.

Don't we "kinda" have this system already? Sure, you migh thave 3 ballistic slots in your arm, but you've got only 10 crit slots. So when you install that AC/20, you're not going to install more than that?

I think on a design level the problem with many such ideas is - there is already a mechanic in the game to limit builds. You're adding another layer on it that is conceptually very similar to the original one (and possibly even uses values from the other restriction system). I find that too fiddly.

Mechwarrior IV wasn't my favorite hard point system by any means, but they were not wrong when they decided to ditch critical slots in exchange for their hard point system - both a complex hard point system and critical slots is needlessly complex.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 21 January 2014 - 11:34 PM.

[Destoroyah]

I think kind of the point is that it's not about players with multiple slots not being able to mount multiple large weapons due too natural crit space/weight restrictions,but should players be able to so easily swap a single small weapon with the largest they can cram in there.

The reason I believe a slightly stricter hardpoint system is good for the game cause the game itself shows a good reason. The current meta system is the reason the fact that players are basically transferring the same loadouts or as close as they can get to it to almost most of their mechs that they buy shows there's a problem with the hardpoint system. What's the point of getting new mechs if all your going to do is make it almost exactly the same as your last mech?. What does a certain mech bring to the table that you can't do with more then a dozen others? The only reason players are really getting other mechs is cause there is nothing else to do in this game and it's the only form of some progression or to get slight improvements in hitboxes or mobility. The reason I say the meta is the source of the problem is cause weapons aren't the true source it's the freedom of weapon combinations and the ease of being able to easily switch to the next big meta shift. It's easier to go to a more restricted system and only have to balance the few golden mechs that will eventually crop up then have to change a item that has sweeping changes to all in various degrees.

I do not think a simple hardpoint restriction is going to be the cure all but it's a step. The other is doing something about the pinpoint accuracy system we got now. The pinpoint weapons are only really a problem now cause of the ease of being able to place all damage at a single point. Now if you couldn't easily place all damage at a point and couldn't always fit the best weapons on your mech or in the same location for damage concentration we wouldn't have had probably 75% of the meta complaints that we do now or ******** systems like ghost heat and many othrs cause they wouldn't have been needed.

As for the OPs suggestion it sounds awfully similar to MW4 system. The Problem with MW4 system was it promoted small weapon boating. If MWO was to implement a Hardpoint Restriction system it would be simpler to just start with a Small/Medium/Large setup then venture into the possibilities of allowing combining smaller hardpoints into a larger one.

Edited by Destoroyah, 22 January 2014 - 03:22 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

The reason I believe a slightly stricter hardpoint system is good for the game cause the game itself shows a good reason. The current meta system is the reason the fact that players are basically transferring the same loadouts or as close as they can get to it to almost most of their mechs that they buy shows there's a problem with the hardpoint system. What's the point of getting new mechs if all your going to do is make it almost exactly the same as your last mech?. What does a certain mech bring to the table that you can't do with more then a dozen others? The only reason players are really getting other mechs is cause there is nothing else to do in this game and it's the only form of some progression or to get slight improvements in hitboxes or mobility. The reason I say the meta is the source of the problem is cause weapons aren't the true source it's the freedom of weapon combinations and the ease of being able to easily switch to the next big meta shift. It's easier to go to a more restricted system and only have to balance the few golden mechs that will eventually crop up then have to change a item that has sweeping changes to all in various degrees.

But why do people copy loadouts between different mechs?

They don't do it because everyone wants to run the same build ,t hey do it because the build they are copying is one of the best.


If you restrict hard points, the result is predictable - instead of copying builds to different mechs, people use only the mechs where the good builds are possible.

What point is there in different mechs if they aren't even used?

Different mechs with the same loadout have a reason to exist - they look differently. Not relevant for game balance, but it allwos at least a stylistic choice, important for player identification and emotional investment.

[mania3c]

Sybreed, on 21 January 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

yeah not the best example I could think of. Perhaps a dragon with a triple AC/2 build would be more legit?


well, because people against hardpoints big argument is that we shouldn't limit builds. My suggestion's goal is to satisfy them too.

I am against hard point size system for many reasons.. and your suggestion is probably even worse than standard "numbers of slots" based idea..on the top of the all problems I have with hardpoint size system..your idea seems to be just more complex..without real depth..or better..other systems can achieve same thing easier..

[XtremWarrior]

New topic, same suggestions, same answer (from me): no.
You're not changing a meta by putting limitations on what a Mech can load:

IMHO, you idea will just make good Mechs even better (Phract 3D/Atlases/Victor/Jager/HGN) because most of them can already fit the big ACs or PPCs that make whinners whine, while the rest won't have anything to oppose to those big guys.
So now we have pinpoint dmg snipers vs... brawlers? Because suddenly, most of the Mechs that could use long range Lasers (aka: the Large ones) to replicate, cannot anymore because of size limitations. Now think about Skirmish in Alpine. With no weapon to fire away from 500m...
Is that how you plan to make the game better?

Also, just as a sidenote, i never see any mention of missiles harpoint exemple in any of those "hardpoint size" thread . Why? Because nobody cares about missiles, it's only (and always) ACs and PPCs. Think about it...

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

I personally think there should just be two sizes of hardpoints: small and large.

small hardpoints: can only mount weapons that take up 1 crit slot or less
large hardpoints: can mount any weapons

I mean how simple is that?

There's no need for a hardpoint system more complex than that. Because the whole point of such a system is to limit PPCs, AC/5s, and AC/20s anyway, which having small/large hardpoints does with simplistic elegance.

Its much more complex than what a hard point does. Hard point can be used to put any number of things on a vehicle. ON is the operative word. On the outside
This is 6 missile hard points

[Khobai]

Quote

well, because people against hardpoints big argument is that we shouldn't limit builds. My suggestion's goal is to satisfy them too.

Of course we should limit builds.

The result of not limiting builds is that 75% of mechs arnt worth using because the other 25% can do the same exact build better.

Quote

.Hard point can be used to put any number of things on a vehicle.

And several real life fighters have different sized hardpoints. Not all hardpoints are universal.

Not that realism has any bearing on the game, nor should it. We should have small and large hardpoints simply to prevent certain overpowered builds from existing and to further differentiate mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 22 January 2014 - 08:15 AM.

[Sybreed]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 January 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Its much more complex than what a hard point does. Hard point can be used to put any number of things on a vehicle. ON is the operative word. On the outside
This is 6 missile hard points

that's an F-14 right?

Reminds me the old days of when I played Jane's Simulation games...

Oh and what are those missiles again... I know they are longer range missiles than the sidewinder or the Sparrow, but I don't remember the name. Phoenix perhaps?

MustrumRidcully, on 21 January 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

If I were to make a "Generic Big Stompy Robot Games that looks almost like Battletech from afar", this is something I might use, and every mech has the same number of hard points, just distributed differently. And the weapon stats would probably organized in such a manner that you can't fully fill all hard points if you always pick the biggest gun for eahc hard point.

Unfortunately it has to be a "Generic Big Stompy Robot game" because stock mechs might not mesh with the system, and I also don't want to be dragged down by design limitations or concepts of the table top game.

---
But back to the OP's idea.

Don't we "kinda" have this system already? Sure, you migh thave 3 ballistic slots in your arm, but you've got only 10 crit slots. So when you install that AC/20, you're not going to install more than that?

I think on a design level the problem with many such ideas is - there is already a mechanic in the game to limit builds. You're adding another layer on it that is conceptually very similar to the original one (and possibly even uses values from the other restriction system). I find that too fiddly.

Mechwarrior IV wasn't my favorite hard point system by any means, but they were not wrong when they decided to ditch critical slots in exchange for their hard point system - both a complex hard point system and critical slots is needlessly complex.

Fair enough, I'd rather go with a simpler system à la MW4 too, but like I said, I'm trying to do compromises for everyone It ends up being pretty complex, gotta agree with you.

Edited by Sybreed, 22 January 2014 - 08:10 AM.

[DocBach]

lsp, on 21 January 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

TLDR but I probably disagree with you. We should be able to mount anything anywhere, because if it where real life I would put whatever the hell I wanted on my mech. And wherever I wanted it, there wouldn't be some fake restrictions holding me back.

You understand that this is a video game based on a sci-fi universe, and thus it has its own rules on how things work, right?

How about this real life example. I've decided that the M240B on my MRAP isn't very cool. I'll upgrade it to an M2 which takes the same hardpoint. No problem!

Now I want more punch; my .50 cal bullets didn't go through that last mudhut I shot up! Let me upgrade it to a 120mm cannon!

Wait! That doesn't work! Its like there is some kind of restrictions holding us back on what works and what doesn't in terms of placing weapon systems in mounts!

PS look at the Stryker MGS try to fire its main gun with the turret traversed (LOL)

[Felbombling]

You know that phenomenon that happens at the pump? Gasoline is under a dollar as the norm. Some storm happens in the gulf of Mexico, and the gas companies cry and moan, then gas jumps to 1.50 per. The media jumps all over it. Government looks into it. Then, as the storm passes, gas falls to $1.10 and everyone is happy and forgetful of the days of gasoline under a dollar.

I think hard points, the heat system, weapon balance and every other core game concept that PGI came up with are sort of like gasoline prices. They have been around so long, with PGI so certain that they will eventually work out together, that we come to accept things like ghost heat as a slapped on fix as the norm. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I am saying it is probably here to stay, because PGI has shown over the last two years that they think they knocked it out of the park on day one.

[focuspark]

Interesting. Honestly, better than what we have from a balance theoryrafting point-of-view but likely, unfortunately, to be too difficult for the newb and console crowd.

I've always preferred the strong-typed hard point system which cared about individual weapon types and not categories. It offers clarity to user, easier balancing options for developers, and better defined requirements for artists.

Example:
CPLT-K2
LA:
hard point 1: { PPC, ER-PPC, LL, LPL, AC10, LB10X, AC20, or Gauss }
RA:
hard point 1: { PPC, ER-PPC, LL, LPL, AC10, LB10X, AC20, or Gauss }
LT:
hard point 1: { SL, SPL, MG }
hard point 2: { SL, SPL, ML, MPL, Flamer }
RT:
hard point 1: { SL, SPL, MG }
hard point 2: { SL, SPL, ML, MPL, Flamer }

Edited by focuspark, 22 January 2014 - 09:06 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sybreed, on 22 January 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

that's an F-14 right?

Reminds me the old days of when I played Jane's Simulation games...

Oh and what are those missiles again... I know they are longer range missiles than the sidewinder or the Sparrow, but I don't remember the name. Phoenix perhaps?

LOL I was a Marine Grunt... I didn't study the payloads of Fighters!

DocBach, on 22 January 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

You understand that this is a video game based on a sci-fi universe, and thus it has its own rules on how things work, right?

How about this real life example. I've decided that the M240B on my MRAP isn't very cool. I'll upgrade it to an M2 which takes the same hardpoint. No problem!

Now I want more punch; my .50 cal bullets didn't go through that last mudhut I shot up! Let me upgrade it to a 120mm cannon!

Wait! That doesn't work! Its like there is some kind of restrictions holding us back on what works and what doesn't in terms of placing weapon systems in mounts!

PS look at the Stryker MGS try to fire its main gun with the turret traversed (LOL)

you didn't even touch on the Supply headaches you'd have since the 120mm ammo is going to a different Regiment!