12 replies to this topic

[100 Tonne]

Could someone, maybe a PGI guy, please explain why certain mechs get more hard points than others?

I am using http://www.sarna.net...ral_BattleMechs as a point of reference.

Example,

Why does the AS7-D and D-DC get 2 ballistic hard points? No stock Atlas uses 2 AC's. Why does the D-DC get 3 missile HP? Its stock is only 2.

Why does the BLR-1D have 3 ballistic HP's when the stock comes with only 2?

Why does the BNC-1E get WOPPING 4 ballistic HP's when stock only uses 1?

Why does the HGN-732 get an extra laser and missile HP?

Why dos the HBK-4G get an extra 2 ballistic HP's?

Why does the CN9-A get an extra 2 missile HP;s?

The STK-3F, AS7-k, QKD-4G, TDR-5S gets no other extra HP's than stock.

When does PGI decide that a mech needs more hard points than comes with stock?

It just seems to me that some balancing issues are coming from adding the option to add extra weapons to some type of mechs?????

[MustrumRidcully]

The basic idea is - you have more options to build your mechs differently.

The specific choices don't neccessarily make sense.


In theory, hard points are not important to balance, because the original balancing from Battletech is based on weight and crit slots - hard points just limit which options you can practically take additionally, but as long as you can fill up your weight, you should have a decent mech.

Practically in M:WO, with the heat system and convergence in place plus all the imbalances in the weapons that are not always worth their weight, that isn't true, unfortunately.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 April 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Oh hell yes - i also want to know why some mechs have ridiculous much HPs while other have not?
Is this a question if this Mech is the favorite of a specific developer?

The quad ballistic in the banshee....is a bad joke - next to the JaegerMechs.... although i really thought that the guys are back on a moderate course after they developed that hero Banshee.

Wouldn't be much more interesting if the "stock" load out could tell you how many weapons you will have.

Aren't there better options too - make similar mechs different (quickdraws, victors, highlanders, jaegermechs - rather than throw a dice and see how many HPs you get next time for a machine gun)

[SirLANsalot]

PGI has an algorithm for hard points per a ton of mech, with some adjustments for JJ/armor ect ect. So the Banshee got a big hard point inflation because why would anyone, in there right mind, use so few hard points if it was purely what it got (based on stock). It also allows for some more customization since this game is using hard points, instead of the 100% pure sheet that BT has. With hard points, it lets every mech have a flavor all to itself. Since BT/TT have no such restrictions in construction rules, you can place whatever you want wherever you want. The only "restrictions" in TT is what people place on the table (WIYSIWYG) and whether or not custom mechs are allowed.

[Karl Streiger]

SirLANsalot, on 08 April 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

PGI has an algorithm for hard points per a ton of mech, with some adjustments for JJ/armor ect ect. So the Banshee got a big hard point inflation because why would anyone, in there right mind, use so few hard points if it was purely what it got (based on stock). It also allows for some more customization since this game is using hard points, instead of the 100% pure sheet that BT has. With hard points, it lets every mech have a flavor all to itself. Since BT/TT have no such restrictions in construction rules, you can place whatever you want wherever you want. The only "restrictions" in TT is what people place on the table (WIYSIWYG) and whether or not custom mechs are allowed.

True - but where 4 HPs really necessary?

Wouldn't have 2 be more as enough? - ok you don't have any weapons in the arms - but that isn't a problem when you would have a bigger torso twist range - but wait the LaMalince got that a bigger torso twist range - but arm weapons too - and of course this time the AC 10 isn't 5 but only 1 Hardpoint.

Same to say about the JaegerMech A...wouldn't have 2 missiles instead of 4 be more as enough?

[SirLANsalot]

Karl Streiger, on 08 April 2014 - 01:30 AM, said:

True - but where 4 HPs really necessary?

Wouldn't have 2 be more as enough? - ok you don't have any weapons in the arms - but that isn't a problem when you would have a bigger torso twist range - but wait the LaMalince got that a bigger torso twist range - but arm weapons too - and of course this time the AC 10 isn't 5 but only 1 Hardpoint.

Same to say about the JaegerMech A...wouldn't have 2 missiles instead of 4 be more as enough?

If you think about it, the Jager A is a 65ton Catapult. Its got the missiles and energy of the C4 but the ballistics of the K2 all put together. Reason the Jagers have 2 more HP nomrally then the Cats even tho there the same tonnage, is becasue the cats have JJ's and the Jagers do not. Also Catapults have a little more armor then Jagers, so all that adds up to why they got a few more HP over the other 65 tonner.


The LM has fewer HP then the other banshees, because it was (originally it was said) going to have JJ but they nixed it just before the patch, and never compensated the mech for it. Just like the Oxide got its JJ's and 2 of its hard points pulled off just before the patch, and never had them placed back on, once it was found the mech...sucked. The latest slew of "hero" mechs have been severely lack luster compared to ones prior. Those are the "chase cow" mechs that PGI makes money on, if they keep on going nerfing there hard points ect ect, before they even launch, hardly anyone will buy them except the collectors (like me).

[El Bandito]

SirLANsalot, on 08 April 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

The latest slew of "hero" mechs have been severely lack luster compared to ones prior.

The Ember disagrees.

[MustrumRidcully]

SirLANsalot, on 08 April 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

If you think about it, the Jager A is a 65ton Catapult. Its got the missiles and energy of the C4 but the ballistics of the K2 all put together. Reason the Jagers have 2 more HP nomrally then the Cats even tho there the same tonnage, is becasue the cats have JJ's and the Jagers do not. Also Catapults have a little more armor then Jagers, so all that adds up to why they got a few more HP over the other 65 tonner.

So, what about the K2 - it has the same hard points as any other Catapult, but no jump jets?

Maybe PGI has an algorithm to determine hard point numbers, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.
Here's an example algorithm:
For each weapon installed on a mech, in alphabetical order of weapon name + hit location key*, roll 1d6 and consult Table 1:
Table 1:
1-2: 1 hard point of the weapon's type
3-5: 2 hard points of the weapon's type; Special: Once you rolled this twice, use Table 2 for all remaining hard pints.
6: 3 hard points of the weapon's type. Roll again, if you roll another 6, it's 4. For all further rolls, use Table 2.
Table 2:
1-5: 1 hard point of the weapon's type
6: 2 hard points of the weapon's type

*) If names + hit location key are identical, roll 1d6 for each to determine the first to last by highest to lowest result. Repeat until you have a definite sequence.

[Davers]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 April 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:

but as long as you can fill up your weight, you should have a decent mech.

Which isn't true, so they had to invent BV. You can 'fill up your weight' and be poor. See, Charger.

[Relic1701]

Back in CB the AS7-D had 6 energy hardpoints, but 2 were removed because it was deemed to powerful (poll anyone to have them replaced?)....as someone said above....the Ember!

So in answer to your question, I think the answer is, think of a number, roll the dice, add or subtract that many based on the flip of a coin, then divide by pi, and add the length of a piece of string (rounded down)

Edited by Relic1701, 08 April 2014 - 10:20 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Big Grimm, on 08 April 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:

Could someone, maybe a PGI guy, please explain why certain mechs get more hard points than others?

I am using http://www.sarna.net...ral_BattleMechs as a point of reference.

Example,

Why does the AS7-D and D-DC get 2 ballistic hard points? No stock Atlas uses 2 AC's. Why does the D-DC get 3 missile HP? Its stock is only 2.

Why does the BLR-1D have 3 ballistic HP's when the stock comes with only 2?

Why does the BNC-1E get WOPPING 4 ballistic HP's when stock only uses 1?

Why does the HGN-732 get an extra laser and missile HP?

Why dos the HBK-4G get an extra 2 ballistic HP's?

Why does the CN9-A get an extra 2 missile HP;s?

The STK-3F, AS7-k, QKD-4G, TDR-5S gets no other extra HP's than stock.

When does PGI decide that a mech needs more hard points than comes with stock?

It just seems to me that some balancing issues are coming from adding the option to add extra weapons to some type of mechs?????

In a lot of cases, they added hard points to even out the number of weapons available within a chassis. The Battlemaster 1D has 3 ballistic options because one of the other mechs had a certain number of hard points and adding an extra ballistic slot allowed PGI to differentiate each variant vs. the others while keeping the number of hard points the same. This does differ in some cases (Jenner K, D-DC, etc) but is made up by extra modules, AMS slots, JJs etc or special equipment like ECM and/or Command Console.

[Solahma]

SirLANsalot, on 08 April 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

...and whether or not custom mechs are allowed.

We stopped allowing custom mechs when a local sent in an Atlas filled with Machine Gun ammo... lots of mechs were killed in that explosion

[Daekar]

My K2 wants its energy hardpoints and module slot back. My C4 wants ballistic hardpoints in its LT and RT. My A1 will settle for practically anything anywhere.