67 replies to this topic

[Augustus Martelus II]

IraqiWalker, on 08 September 2014 - 12:46 AM, said:

Why would I take the HBK-4G since it can no longer mount an AC 20? It's got 3 ballistic hardpoints in the side torso, meaning that it should have fewer slots for ballistics than the other HBKs, that only have 1 or 2 ballistics points in there. Fiddling with these, for every mech, for every weapon hardpoint, is going to create more work, and in the end, it won't actually create balance. It will shift the game to a different meta. This time, it will be ML boating heavies and assaults, with big engines.

look at the Misery i made on the excell format and you ll see it could still run an ac20

It doesnt mean 1 balistic or 1 energy or 1 missile = 1 crit slot each.
Just look at the colored missiles slots on the stalkers side it say 1 weapon M but you still have 3 critical slots for missiles, same for the arms (wich even have a little more)

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 08 September 2014 - 01:04 AM.

[Augustus Martelus II]

and personally i had never use the full capacities for weapons of each mech...had laways prefer a mix of a lot of heat dissipation and maneuvrability vs huge alpha mechs.

And with this system you still can make pretty powerful build....just with more different weapons and not only med lasers.

I could still build a 4 larges lasers stalker....Yeah its boating but a lot less than in the current system.

yeah i use those 2 since i ve made them in excel and i m visual.

I could make other mechs and use them as example too. Atlas, Awesome, clans mechs or anything. just the problem i need to find the stock variant of each mech then apply it on the excel thing while using Smurfy (for weapon size and etc)

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

look at the Misery i made on the excell format and you ll see it could still run an ac20

It doesnt mean 1 balistic or 1 energy or 1 missile = 1 crit slot each.
Just look at the colored missiles slots on the stalkers side it say 1 weapon M but you still have 3 critical slots for missiles, same for the arms (wich even have a little more)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying (You also just ignored my question completely). The Misery should be able to mount an AC 20, it's got one ballistic hardpoint, and it's the only stalker that can do that.

If we are to implement your system, then there needs to be some sort of balance, to make sure that mechs with fewer hardpoints, don't get even more neglected than they already are. That would be by allowing them to mount the bigger weapons in those hardpoints. So a Hunchback 4H with it's one ballistic hardpoint will be able to mount the AC 20. While the Hunchback-4G shouldn't be able to do that, since it has 3 ballistic hardpoints and should theoretically have fewer slots for the hardpoints. Otherwise, I'd just pick the 4G every single time over the 4H.

You just killed the 4G stock build, without even realizing it. Or do you want your hardpoint system to be implemented on some mechs and not others? Which by the way, will break the game in another way.

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

and personally i had never use the full capacities for weapons of each mech...had laways prefer a mix of a lot of heat dissipation and maneuvrability vs huge alpha mechs.

And with this system you still can make pretty powerful build....just with more different weapons and not only med lasers.

I could still build a 4 larges lasers stalker....Yeah its boating but a lot less than in the current system.

yeah i use those 2 since i ve made them in excel and i m visual.

I could make other mechs and use them as example too. Atlas, Awesome, clans mechs or anything. just the problem i need to find the stock variant of each mech then apply it on the excel thing while using Smurfy (for weapon size and etc)

Your system will emphasize small slot weapons, causing energy weapons to become the most dominant weapons in the game, more to the exclusion of all others, and force players to boat as many energy weapons as possible (most likely, no pulse versions since they occupy too much space), and frankly, that's a worse scenario than what we have right now.

The hardpoint size idea sounds nice. In application, it's not a good idea to implement. It balances nothing really, and creates more problems. Since it's forcing more slot restrictions on the mech designer, causing any weapons that occupies too many slots, to become a serious problem. That means ballistics will become almost extinct on any mech that can mount them and energy weapons. Mechs that only fit energy weapons with their low slot costs will become even more preferred, and this time, the clan mechs will really be OP because their energy weapons cost a slot less than most IS energy weapons.

Try using all of the weapons hardpoints on your mechs, see what you can do with them. Because honestly, other than a couple of loadouts that can be transferred across the Jagermech, Atlas, and Orion mechs, there really is a LOT of variety between the mechs we have.

[1453 R]

Augustus, you don't need to keep throwing (theoretical) spreadsheets at people. We understand what you're trying to do from the first set. We get it.

We just don't agree with it.

It would destroy certain existing 'Mechs which rely on large weapons in small slots to be even remotely viable on the field (Dragon, Quickdraw) as well as badly damage existing 'Mechs which work because of a shift of emphasis in their default armaments (the Centurion Surmbomber, any all-da-missiles Griffins that burn every last slot in their RT on launchers). You'd remove perfectly viable and legitimate builds from the game, builds people have used and relied on for years, for no reason. You wouldn't change anything. 'Mechs wouldn't be super-special-snowflakes any more than they already are. Sized hardpoints wouldn't stop the endless balance hammering; the only way to stop sledgehammer balancing is for Piranha to collectively develop a clue, and this is hardly a way to convince them to do that, is it?

[Blacksoul1987]

Sized hardpoints does differentiate mechs but it does not stop boating. There are always variants that will be perfect for boating. And It definitely does not remove the need for weapon balancing.

[Augustus Martelus II]

Sure it always depend on the hardpoint size. I don t put an emphasis on small hardpoint size. This is only an example that can be transform a lot.

Or something that could work out of this is try to balance the weapon weight on each side....but there, they would be some sort of other problems. I know the Gyro help the mech with its balance while walking or running but when you bring an ac20 in one arm on a 35 ton light mech....lol this thing must work a lot.

[Blacksoul1987]

I don't mind the idea of sized hardpoints but it absolutely cannot substitute weapon balance. and great care must be taken make sure it is balanced.

[Augustus Martelus II]

Blacksoul1987, on 08 September 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

I don't mind the idea of sized hardpoints but it absolutely cannot substitute weapon balance. and great care must be taken make sure it is balanced.

Well they will never be a true good solution in anything.

But something that everyone here must know, i was never against bigger weapons. Like i was against the gauss charge mechanism....instead they could have make it that you can only shoot one gauss at a time with a 0.5 sec (could be more or less) time between the next one could shot (so it would be like if they were in permanent chain fire). Or the fact to slow down ppcs....if you stay in the way, you deserve to be hit. and etc

[Blacksoul1987]

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Well they will never be a true good solution in anything.

But something that everyone here must know, i was never against bigger weapons. Like i was against the gauss charge mechanism....instead they could have make it that you can only shoot one gauss at a time with a 0.5 sec (could be more or less) time between the next one could shot (so it would be like if they were in permanent chain fire). Or the fact to slow down ppcs....if you stay in the way, you deserve to be hit. and etc

I had suggested forced chainfire for weapons like PPC's and gauss, its not very popular idea and it does create other problems as well.

[Augustus Martelus II]

Unfortunatly every solution can have some positive stuff and negative stuff none are perfect :/

[Augustus Martelus II]

Well i ve made a little example. Just to show how it work. I did put max armor (except did remove a few on the leg to have a round number)

had put endo, double heat sinks and artemis system.


Did do it via smurfy mechlab

[Augustus Martelus II]

Aint the best config i did but just wanted to show how it would look like.

I m visual so i love to explain my stuff with images

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Sure it always depend on the hardpoint size. I don t put an emphasis on small hardpoint size. This is only an example that can be transform a lot.

Or something that could work out of this is try to balance the weapon weight on each side....but there, they would be some sort of other problems. I know the Gyro help the mech with its balance while walking or running but when you bring an ac20 in one arm on a 35 ton light mech....lol this thing must work a lot.

AC20s can and do get mounted on light mechs, with little to no issue. You see, AC 20s were never big barrel guns that fired a single massive bullet. Nope, Some fired as many as 200 rounds within 10 seconds totaling up to 20 damage. The Urbie is famous for running around with AC 20s, and LB-20Xs.

I like that you're trying to come up with solutions to help balance the game. Keep at it. However, hardpoint sizes has been heavily discussed since early alpha and has been shown to fail, and ruin stock builds, and on top of that, reduce customization even more than now.

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Well they will never be a true good solution in anything.

But something that everyone here must know, i was never against bigger weapons. Like i was against the gauss charge mechanism....instead they could have make it that you can only shoot one gauss at a time with a 0.5 sec (could be more or less) time between the next one could shot (so it would be like if they were in permanent chain fire). Or the fact to slow down ppcs....if you stay in the way, you deserve to be hit. and etc

The charge mechanic is actually the best fix they have ever implemented. Gauss is right now in the best position it could ever be in. The weapon serves it's purpose as a long range devastation rifle, without being the most over-powered short range weapon. In fact, it serves as a proper long range weapon. Strong at range, with big drawbacks at short range combat.

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Well i ve made a little example. Just to show how it work. I did put max armor (except did remove a few on the leg to have a round number)

had put endo, double heat sinks and artemis system.


Did do it via smurfy mechlab

Yep, THAT right there, is the main problem with the hardpoint size limit. First, you're allowing me to mount an LRM 20 on a 15 tube launcher.

Second, You're forcing me to mount nothing bigger than an AC 5. What if I wanted an AC 10, LB-10X, or Gauss? You know, the main weapon this chassis was designed with? You're forcing people to use specific builds that you prefer, while depriving them of builds they would like.

The builds you're ruining/restricting aren't even big offenders, or broken set ups. They are the general purpose designs the mech was conceived to use in the first place.


Again: I like that you are trying to find solutions, and I encourage you to keep it up, but this particular one has been discussed thoroughly over the past 4 years, and it does more harm than good. There were no hardpoint size restrictions in lore, to any mech. The main reason that system was implemented, was limitations of technology, and difficulty of coding.

[Augustus Martelus II]

For the Ac/20 (or any other ac) i would have like if PGI could have made it as the battletech table, instead of shooting a damn car size bullet to a mech lol

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 08 September 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 08 September 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

For the Ac/20 (or any other ac) i would have like if PGI could have made it as the battletech table, instead of shooting a damn car size bullet to a mech lol

Yeah. If a Jagermech had a canon THAT big on each arm, and fire both at the same time, the arms would have launched backwards.

[Augustus Martelus II]

IraqiWalker, on 08 September 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

Yeah. If a Jagermech had a canon THAT big on each arm, and fire both at the same time, the arms would have launched backwards.

would be fun to see lol

[HlynkaCG]

Iraqiwalker has already pointed out the flaws that I was going to point out. Though to be frank I always considered the concept of "burst fire" ACs to be kind of silly. (Seriously, that's what UACs are supposed to be).

So I will leave you with this. rather than sized hard-points have some weapons occupy multiple points.

IE if a mech has two missile hard-points in it's arm, it can mount either two LRM 10s or a single LRM 20.

[IraqiWalker]

HlynkaCG, on 08 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Iraqiwalker has already pointed out the flaws that I was going to point out. Though to be frank I always considered the concept of "burst fire" ACs to be kind of silly. (Seriously, that's what UACs are supposed to be).

So I will leave you with this. rather than sized hard-points have some weapons occupy multiple points.

IE if a mech has two missile hard-points in it's arm, it can mount either two LRM 10s or a single LRM 20.

The way Ultra ACs worked, was that they, unlike regular ACs, could fire in ultra mode, meaning they fire as the rounds are being loaded (which is why they had a chance of jamming in ultra fire). ACs fire, load a new casette, and then fire again. While Ultras fire, and as the new casette is loaded in (In many cases it's actually a belt feeding mechanism), they fire as the rounds are loaded in.

[HlynkaCG]

To expand lets say you have ballistic weapons, and you break them down as follows...

• Occupies 1 Slot: Machine Gun, AC-2, AC-5
  
• Occupies 2 Slots: AC-10, UAC-5, LB10X
  
• Occupies 3 Slots: Gauss, AC-20

Now lets look at how this effects an existing chasis, specifically the Jager.

• JM-6A: Restricted to light ACs 2s & 5s, as you desired
  
• JM-6S: Has the option to boat Light AC's or run a pair of "Mediums" (AC10s or UAC5s)
  
• JM-6DD: becomes unique as the only variant capable of dual mounting dual gauss.

[HlynkaCG]

IraqiWalker, on 08 September 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

The way Ultra ACs worked, was that they, unlike regular ACs, could fire in ultra mode, meaning they fire as the rounds are being loaded (which is why they had a chance of jamming in ultra fire). ACs fire, load a new casette, and then fire again. While Ultras fire, and as the new casette is loaded in (In many cases it's actually a belt feeding mechanism), they fire as the rounds are loaded in.

A nice rationalization, but it still doesn't make a lick of sense from an engineering standpoint. There's a reason that real-world auto cannons never caught on. The distance that the breach block bust move between shots is proportional to the size of the round being fired, The Larger the round, the faster the breach block must move to maintain the same rate of fire. The breach block must also be larger/heavier in order to effectively handle the larger round.

Big heavy parts moving very fast require special consideration else the AC will quickly become more effective as a bomb than it is as a gun.

This is why modern tanks still fire single shots.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 09 September 2014 - 08:29 AM.