205 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

I'm resurrecting my idea for sized hardpoints. I found my old post locked in the archives and I have refined it somewhat so that's why I'm making a new post.

Option A:
There should be two categories for hardpoints; Small and Large. Keep it simple and base it off the stock loadout of the variant/chassis.

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

Large hardpoints can equip small weapons, but small hardpoints cannot equip large weapons.
The listed weapons include variant weapons (pulse, er, uac, lb, streak, etc).

This would allow for light and medium mechs that carry large weapons to be unique.

Option B:
Builds off option A somewhat. Use the weapon categories of small and large, but make that into a hardpoint cost instead. For instance, small weapons only need one hardpoint to be equipped but large weapons require two hardpoints. This hardpoint requirement would be in addition to crit slots and tonnage.

[FupDup]

I've never understood why people insist on arbitrary size conventions such as "small" or "large" for the size limiter of hardpoints. Those concepts don't exist for classifying equipment in Battletech, outside of laser and pulse laser weapons. The way weapon size is represented in terms of "can it fit?" is critical slots. I.e. the Large Laser is twice as big as a Medium Laser (2 slots versus 1 slot). Critical slots are one of the most vital components of the Battlemech construction system and a natural balancing mechanism built into the game.

Critslots, IMO, make much more sense for determining hardpoint size than qualitative word conventions. .



Oh, and also, I'd like for hardpoints to have a set number of weapons that can be placed there in addition to a critical slot size limit. The reason for not having just 1 hardpoint = 1 weapon only is because that encourages you to cram in the biggest possible weapon at all times, sort of like what our current system does.

On the other hand, MW4's system of being able to cram in as many tiny guns as you wished could be quite stupid at times. In MW4, if you had the slots you could fit it, period. For example, you could replace a PPC with 3 Medium Lasers every time. One of the worst offenders was an Annihilator carrying 16 Machine Guns. I believe that my system allows for a nice "happy medium" between both extremes while avoiding their main issues.

As a practical example, a Catapult K2 might have 4-5 slots of energy hardpoints on each arm, with a weapon limit of 2. Those arms look big enough to handle more than a single dinky Small Laser, but allowing any more kind of messes with the mech's role.

Edited by FupDup, 22 April 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[zagibu]

What you suggest, FupDup, would be ideal, but it would also require a lot of work from the modeling department (just for taking your K2 example, they'd have to add the additional lasers to the ears). I think simply leaving all hardpoints as they are now but adding sensible crit slot limits would already help a lot. Even better would be a weapon tonnage limit for each hardpoint, because it would allow finer grained control (could allow to install SLas, but not MLas for example, or SRM6, but no LRM10).

I can only guess that the reason they don't do any of this is because it would make some builds impossible. Which is of course the point, but taking away possibilities is never a popular thing. Also, it would invalidate some of the work they did (the fully customizable mechs already have all possible weapon loadouts modeled out).

Edited by zagibu, 22 April 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[moneyBURNER]

Keep it simple. The hardpoint itself is the number limit. Just add a maximum number of slots to each hardpoint to distinguish variants and offer plausibility in terms of size and weight distribution that the current system doesn't address.

[OneEyed Jack]

Yes, what we really need is to contract the meta to a truly mind-numbingly limited number of chassis, because there would still be a "best" build, except only now one chassis would have the hardpoints to do it.

Shove this crap back in the archive.

[zagibu]

Yeah, because having such a system means it would have to be enforced in a completely variation-killing way, BECAUSE. BACON.

Back to the archive with YOU.

[RG Notch]

You people are still around? Do you not take the hint? It's entertaining the devotion some people have to this hard point size idea? You expect a sudden reworking of this system now? It's sort of cute, most other people with ideas that PGI will never use have gone away, but the hard point size people never give up.
I'm not totally against the idea (well except for the silly idea that some proponents have that it will increase diversity, LOL, if anything it will simply make more mechs either the go to choice or worthless) but PGI is never going to do anything that requires this much work. If you can come up with a quick and easy band aid fix they may consider it but anything that requires real work will never be done. These people can't even keep up with their own ideas let alone rework something major like this.

[RedDragon]

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yes, what we really need is to contract the meta to a truly mind-numbingly limited number of chassis, because there would still be a "best" build, except only now one chassis would have the hardpoints to do it.

Shove this crap back in the archive.

Have fun in your 3 PPC-Awesome if you still want to pursue the meta

[CDLord HHGD]

Wow the vitriol of some is staggering... I'll be looking for ya on the field of battle. To those with sensible points and counterpoints, thank you for being adults.

[Relic1701]

Reasons this could work....

• Boating - GONE (except on mechs designed to boat)
  
• One shot kill monsters - GONE
  
• Mechs carrying weapons they were never designed for - GONE
  
• Reason for ghost heat being there - GONE
  
• Opens up the rarely used chassis's 'cos they can do things the others can't
  
• Clans mechs suddenly become fully customisable
  
• Probably a few others as well (but it's late & I'm very tired)

Reasons this is not a good idea....

• erm...?
  
• oh yeah, the meta/one shot guys don't like it!

If done sensibly, a lot of the builds would not be affected, except maybe move a few of the weapons around here & there...

Discuss, don't dismiss!

Edited by Relic1701, 22 April 2014 - 03:02 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Relic1701, on 22 April 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Reasons this could work....

• Boating - GONE (except on mechs designed to boat)
  
• One shot kill monsters - GONE
  
• Mechs carrying weapons they were never designed for - GONE
  
• Reason for ghost heat being there - GONE
  
• Opens up the rarely used chassis's 'cos they can do things the others can't
  
• Clans mechs suddenly become fully customisable
  
• Probably a few others as well (but it's late & I'm very tired)

Reasons this is not a good idea....

• erm...?
  
• oh yeah, the meta/one shot guys don't like it!

If done sensibly, a lot of the builds would not be affected, except maybe move a few of the weapons around here & there...


Discuss, don't dismiss!

Very good points Relic, thank you!

I know I don't have the end all be all answer but there's gotta be a different way than what we have now.

[GroovYChickeN]

cdlord, on 22 April 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Wow the vitriol of some is staggering... I'll be looking for ya on the field of battle. To those with sensible points and counterpoints, thank you for being adults.

This is really why I don't post much on the forums. I did a bunch when I first started playing and the self proclaimed "fans" were just filled with anger and hate.

To add to what has been said. A hard point rework would be great but only if the did it with a rework of ghost heat and quirks. This would further diversify the reasons for choosing a class/mech/chassis/loadout. However it will never happen.

[Josef Nader]

I fail to understand how this is in any way nessicary or useful. All it does is doom underused variants or variants with the wrong "sized" hard points to the scrap heap. If you think people will be any more likely go with non-meta builds in this system than they are now, you're smoking something.

MechWarrior 4s system was awful, and the last thing we need is round 2 of that.

To further elaborate, right now I can put good weapons on a bad mech and still do well. Limit what I can put on that mech, and certain variants and loadouts would -completely- disappear from play outside of the torturous 15-20 games required to basic them out.

Edited by Josef Nader, 22 April 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

cdlord, on 22 April 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

I'm resurrecting my idea for sized hardpoints. I found my old post locked in the archives and I have refined it somewhat so that's why I'm making a new post.

Option A:
There should be two categories for hardpoints; Small and Large. Keep it simple and base it off the stock loadout of the variant/chassis.

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

Large hardpoints can equip small weapons, but small hardpoints cannot equip large weapons.
The listed weapons include variant weapons (pulse, er, uac, lb, streak, etc).

This would allow for light and medium mechs that carry large weapons to be unique.

Option B:
Builds off option A somewhat. Use the weapon categories of small and large, but make that into a hardpoint cost instead. For instance, small weapons only need one hardpoint to be equipped but large weapons require two hardpoints. This hardpoint requirement would be in addition to crit slots and tonnage.

I'm all for it but it isn't going to happen. PGI is happy with our ability to build different mechs and they're not about to go back on that. Besides, it would cause such an issue wiht everyone because many people would be forced to buy a different mech to achieve the same goal. So, I'm with you but the utlimate answer is "no".

[Gryphorim]

I fully support the idea of sized hard points. In particular the way suggested by fupdup. So long as the max weapons per location doesn't change, adding a size constaint provides a throttling to abusive weapon combinations superior and more situational than ghost heat.

[moneyBURNER]

Implementing this system should actually save all kinds of work for PGI because it simplifies weapon balancing/boating issues, modeling issues, role warfare, etc.

The number of viable builds would only increase because chassis characteristics and variant quirks would be much more impactful in balancing particularly effective loadouts.

[Davers]

I used to be against this idea, but after discussing the Panther in the 'short list of upcoming mechs' thread I really wish PGI had gone with stock mechs rather than customization. Even a slight amount of customization creates much more powerful versions of the original mechs.

[OneEyed Jack]

Relic1701, on 22 April 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Reasons this could work....

• Boating - GONE (except on mechs designed to boat)
  
• One shot kill monsters - GONE
  
• Mechs carrying weapons they were never designed for - GONE
  
• Reason for ghost heat being there - GONE
  
• Opens up the rarely used chassis's 'cos they can do things the others can't
  
• Clans mechs suddenly become fully customisable
  
• Probably a few others as well (but it's late & I'm very tired)

Reasons this is not a good idea....

• erm...?
  
• oh yeah, the meta/one shot guys don't like it!

If done sensibly, a lot of the builds would not be affected, except maybe move a few of the weapons around here & there...


Discuss, don't dismiss!

Reasons this as stupid now as it ever was....
Boating - Not a problem. But if it was, does it really matter if it's on one chassis or another?
One shot kill monsters - Um... what one-shot kills?
Mechs carrying weapons they were never designed for - Stupid argument. The IP (and previous incarnations of MW) have always had customization. This is nothing but "that mech can have these weapons, but this mech can't because.... THINGS!
Reason for ghost heat being there - There are no reasons for ghost heat worth mentioning.
Opens up the rarely used chassis's 'cos they can do things the others can't - Because some people are too effing dense to realize that the only chassis that would matter would be the very few that could do very specific things, and other chassis would actually be used less or not at all.

In short, telling people that if they want to play a certain style, whatever that style might be, they can only do it in a given chassis does NOT, in any way, increase diversity or stop the bad people from touching you.

[101011]

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

Reasons this as stupid now as it ever was....
Boating - Not a problem. But if it was, does it really matter if it's on one chassis or another?
One shot kill monsters - Um... what one-shot kills?
Mechs carrying weapons they were never designed for - Stupid argument. The IP (and previous incarnations of MW) have always had customization. This is nothing but "that mech can have these weapons, but this mech can't because.... THINGS!
Reason for ghost heat being there - There are no reasons for ghost heat worth mentioning.
Opens up the rarely used chassis's 'cos they can do things the others can't - Because some people are too effing dense to realize that the only chassis that would matter would be the very few that could do very specific things, and other chassis would actually be used less or not at all.

In short, telling people that if they want to play a certain style, whatever that style might be, they can only do it in a given chassis does NOT, in any way, increase diversity or stop the bad people from touching you.

You did gloss over the Clan customization, that being, IS 'Mechs are already improved omnies. And there is such a thing as a one shot kill, it is called a headshot/stupid light. That being said, I agree that hardpoint limitations are not the way to go.

[EyeOne]

I wasn't a fan of this in the pre ghost heat days but... I'm on board now. Let do this! Design it, throw it on the PTS and let's try it.