Russ' Hardpoint Challenge
#261
Posted 07 October 2014 - 04:29 AM
I'm sick of people who think everyone should play the game THEIR way....
#262
Posted 07 October 2014 - 04:35 AM
Lordred, on 06 October 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:
In my own perfect world, I imagine 3 weapon size classes for each weapon group system, each mechs hard points based off its original configuration, yes you can customize it and swap out whatever you want, so long as it will fit.
I've taken the time to diagram out 12 example (Four Mechs, three variants, I chose the Phoenix Pack.)
Weapon class for IS weapons.
Breif explination.
Class one (C1) hardpoints may mount up to class one weapons.
Class two (C2) hardpoints may mount up to class two weapons.
Class thee (C3) hardpoints may mount up to class three weapons.
If you have two C1 mounts in the same location, you may mount one (1) C2 weapon
If you have three C1 mounts in the same location, you may mount either one (1) C2 and one (1) C1, OR one (1) C3 weapon.
Likewise with larger weapon hardpoints, you may increase the number of weapons you mount if you choose to equip smaller weapons.
If you have a C2 mount, you may instead equip two (2) C1 weapons.
If you have a C3 mount, you may instead equip one (1) C2 and one C1, OR Three (3) C1 weapons.
This is what I thought of for the first 12 mechs I mapped out, based on their orginial configurations.
Locust:
Shadowhawk
Thunderbolt
Battlemaster
Please let me know what you think.
Having 1 Large weapon = 3 Small weapons will encourage Medium Laser boats unfortunately wouldn't it? Keeping the # of hardpoints constant prevents that problem.
#263
Posted 07 October 2014 - 04:37 AM
Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:
Having 1 Large weapon = 3 Small weapons will encourage Medium Laser boats unfortunately wouldn't it? Keeping the # of hardpoints constant prevents that problem.
I addressed something similar in my post, one-way conversion as an optional bonus.
#264
Posted 07 October 2014 - 04:44 AM
Arctourus, on 07 October 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:
I'm sick of people who think everyone should play the game THEIR way....
I think we can all agree that the 4 PPC Stalker and AC40 Jager and the Splatcat were problems at one time (Before the PPC nerf and ghost heat). We can also probably agree that the PPC nerf and Ghost heat bandaid aren't great. PPCs just aren't that great anymore and mechs that are suppose to be boats (Nova Prime, Hunchback 4P) lose viability.
So, the question is, NOT should a mech have 4 PPCs, but should the Stalker, a mech built around a mix of lasers and missiles, be able to carry 4 PPCs?
#266
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:01 AM
Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:
Keeping the # of hardpoints on the other hand will prevent builds that differ much from the "original"
good example - the think-toy Awesome 8Q - 3 C3/4 Energy weapon; 1 C1 Energy weapon.
so the only decision is: SHS or not:
AWS-8Q - with SHS
AWS-8Q-with DHS
Any other build would not work.
So if you have a problem with the Stalker having 4 PPCs - because it should have a mix of laser and missiles.... don't you think that a Stockmode / Near Stock or positive Perks for Mixed Missiles would be sufficent
#267
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:09 AM
The Sized Hard Point System:
Class 1- Used only for small weapon systems.
-IS-
Class 1 Weapon Systems:
Energy: TAG, Flamer, Small Laser Family, Medium Laser Family.
Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC 2.
Missile: NARC, SSRM 2, SRM 2, SRM 4, LRM 5
-CLAN-
Class 1 Weapon Systems:
Energy: TAG, Flamer, Small Laser Family, Medium Laser Family.
Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC 2 Family.
Missile: NARC, SSRM 2, SRM 2, SSRM 4, SRM 4, LRM 5
Class 2- Used only for average sized weapons. Can accommodate Class 1 weapons of its respective type.
-IS-
Class 2 Weapon Systems:
Energy: Large laser Family.
Ballistic: AC 5, UAC 5.
Missile: SRM 6, LRM 10
-CLAN-
Class 2 Weapon Systems:
Energy: Large laser Family.
Ballistic: AC 5 Family
Missile: SSRM 6, SRM 6, LRM 10
Class 3- Used only for large and heavy weapon systems. Can accommodate any Class 1 and 2 weapons systems of their respective type.
-IS-
Class 3 Weapon Systems:
Energy: PPC, ER PPC.
Ballistic: AC 10, LB 10-X AC.
Missile: LRM 15
-CLAN-
Class 3 Weapon Systems:
Energy: ER PPC.
Ballistic: AC 10 Family
Missile: LRM 15
Class 4- Reserved for the largest and heaviest weapon systems and can accommodate all other Class sizes.
-IS-
Class 4 Weapon Systems:
Ballistic: Gauss Rifle, AC 20
Missile: LRM 20
-CLAN-
Class 4 Weapon Systems:
Ballistic: Gauss Rifle, AC 20 Family
Missile: LRM 20
-INNER SPHERE Mech List with the Sized Hard Point System-
-CLAN Mech List with the Sized Hard Point System-
What people really need to understand is that a sized hard point system is NEEDED to not only balance mech builds but to open up opportunities for unused mech chassis, a KEY for Role Warfare. If PGI goes with a sensible sized hard point system it would be a step in the right direction.
Edited by Marcs Birger, 07 October 2014 - 05:22 AM.
#268
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:18 AM
Marcs Birger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:
NO - you can not have a MechLab AND Hardpoints.
So a 2 PPC Stalker is bad - but a Quad Large Laser Stalker is OK?
What about the BattleMaster 1D - show me only 1 build that differs from the stock (oh well you can make the PPC a ER-PPC and the MLAS a MPLAS
Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2014 - 05:19 AM.
#269
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:20 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 07 October 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:
EgoSlayer found a personal bias that you had in your work up I think.
It deserves more research.
EgoSlayer mentions 6 Mechs (2 IS and 4 Clan) that need attention. I added the Firestarter to my initial list and it is solved by adding Class 1 energy weapons (Small Lasers, TAG, Flamers). The Hunchback is similarly reduced to 8 med laser boating - but I think we all kinda want him back. The other 4 Clan mechs I address here: http://mwomercs.com/...nge-clan-mechs/
#270
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:27 AM
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:
So a 2 PPC Stalker is bad - but a Quad Large Laser Stalker is OK?
What about the BattleMaster 1D - show me only 1 build that differs from the stock (oh well you can make the PPC a ER-PPC and the MLAS a MPLAS
Using the Hardpoint list a 4x Large Laser Stalker would not be possible. And a Battlemaster 1D could look like this:
**Battlemaster 1D**
RA
1x [Class 4] energy ---- (ANY energy)
LA
3x [Class 1] ballistic --- (MG, AC2)
RT/LT
2x [Class 2] energy ---- (Med Lasers, Med Pulse Lasers, TAG, Small Lasers, Small Pulse Lasers)
If the mech lacks customization or viability, you can always bump up something. Like perhaps make the Left Arm:
1x [Class 3] ballistic --- (MG, AC2, AC5, UAC5, LB10x, AC10)
2x [Class 1] ballsitic --- (MG, AC2)
#271
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:28 AM
Fishbulb333, on 07 October 2014 - 01:54 AM, said:
It's the only mech that can kill anything and everything in a single shot while being practical, unlike the Catapult K2. This is until the King Crab comes out. And if it's sporting a standard engine it is not easy to deal with at all.
Though it's not the Jagermech at fault. It's the lore-breaking AC/20. IS AC/20s in 3055 are still 185mm at the largest, which is specifically stated to be a 4 shot weapon per rating (20 damage). Every other IS AC/20 ranges in the 5 shot (Hunchback 4G), 10 shot (Tank), 16 shot (Atlas), 12 shot (King Crab), to 100 shot (Victor) ranges with a number of variants in between those ranges.
The Ebon Jaguar's (Cauldron Born's) UAC/20 at 203mm, the only one of that size, fires up to 4 shots in ultra mode (2 shot weapon standard) with a long time between shots according to one author and 1 shot according to another author who was responsible for alien bird people that also never became canon.
If it wasn't a lore breaking weapon, thusly not a frontloaded weapon set with two of them, no one would care if a Jagermech had two AC/20s.
Yes, it may fit tabletop, but in the same realm it's doing 20 damage in 10 seconds and the weapon has 5 uses per ton, lasting it 50 seconds in combat. This thing doesn't last more than 16 seconds on one ton of ammo (with 7 uses), has immensely frontloaded damage, had to be reduced to a snail's pace. Tabletop suffers horrendously from pinpoint damage compared to the lore...which is frequently forsaken in MWO.
There are more than 24 variants of AC/20 in the 3050 era. An additional 13 variants I found so far of Clan UAC/20. Aside from one author's account (and my god alien mech-piloting birds) of one variant in contest, not a single AC is single shot to make their damage.
In fact, very few medium lasers are one shot to make their damage in the fluff. The Rassal Blue Beam's details attributing it to be one of the most powerful medium lasers, and it has a plethora of problems that made the 'instant' nature of the weapon a very selective interest.
Edited by Koniving, 07 October 2014 - 05:33 AM.
#273
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:33 AM
Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:
1x [Class 3] ballistic --- (MG, AC2, AC5, UAC5, LB10x, AC10)
2x [Class 1] ballsitic --- (MG, AC2)
So you need to carefully overlook every build and every combination of weapons - that may be possible:
- BLR-1D LA
- LA 1 Class 3 + 2 Class 1
- RA 1 Class 4
- LA 1 Class 3 + 2 Class 1
- BLR-1G LA
- LA 1 Class 4 + 1 Class 1
- RA 1 Class 4
- LA 1 Class 4 + 1 Class 1
- BLR-3M
- LA 1 Class 2
- RA 1 Class 4 + 1 Class 2
- LA 1 Class 2
And all your work is in vain the moment PGI decided that they can't longer stall the Annihilator
#274
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:40 AM
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:
Why not?
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:
You do realise the clearly different nature of these weapons and the allocation of their hard points?
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:
Again the list is slightly dated. One of each of those CLASS 1 Energy points in the side torsos can be bumped to a CLASS 2 Energy. Also note that the CLASS 1 Ballistic includes AC2s. The point of these choices was to create a balance between the weapon systems and to promote chassis diversity in the battle field.
Edited by Marcs Birger, 07 October 2014 - 05:41 AM.
#275
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:48 AM
Marcs Birger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:
Ever fired 3 or 4 large lasers at once?
Location don't have much effect for the Stalker - maybe it could be interesting on a Beamer (torso vs arm weapon)
If you have a wild mix of class 2 and class 1 or class 4 and class 3 or what ever on a Mech you only have more confusion.
Oh I'm a cadett - i have seen a BattleMaster running a gauss - yeah i want to have it.
Here 8.000.000 i have a battlemaster - wait - i can't mount a Gauss? Why not? **** Game.
There are still guys that complain about the "UI2.0" Mechlab - do you really expect they can work with multiple classes of weapons?
#276
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:51 AM
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:
Location don't have much effect for the Stalker - maybe it could be interesting on a Beamer (torso vs arm weapon)
If you have a wild mix of class 2 and class 1 or class 4 and class 3 or what ever on a Mech you only have more confusion.
Oh I'm a cadett - i have seen a BattleMaster running a gauss - yeah i want to have it.
Here 8.000.000 i have a battlemaster - wait - i can't mount a Gauss? Why not? **** Game.
There are still guys that complain about the "UI2.0" Mechlab - do you really expect they can work with multiple classes of weapons?
Doesn't this exist already? Cadet sees Battlemaster running a gauss (1D, 1G, 3M). They buy a 1S or 3S. Wait, I can't mount a Gauss?
#277
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:55 AM
stop ruining this game. we dont need more limitations. weapon classes and what not... thats just over complicating stuff.
instead of making things fun you guys keep making things more complicated and lame.
i get restricting special builds such as the dual gauss dual ppc build on the DW, but why the hell would you change the entire way the mechs are built? that seems like a very scary and stupid move.
TBH, after paul had nerfed the hell out of the C-ERLLs i had left the game for 2 months. while i was gone, from what i understand, PGI had noticed theyve uppset the balance too much and had to rework pauls insenetive nerfs.
i was in love with this game and yet i got so upset with the balance being thrown out that i just decided to leave and maybe come back later if the balance had come back. well... it did come back, luckily for me.
now this thing is looming ahead. im not even sure i understand what they want to do but it sounds like more restrictions.
the game is fun now, this model is working so well... why would you risk ruining it?
and heres what i really think.
most of you hardcore BT fans are ruining this game. its a PC game, its not table top. times have moved onwards and most of you fans are stuck in the 80s. youre like those old people who hate todays clothing style. get with the times.
every big and insensitive change thats done will effect the player base.
waiting between 3 to 5 minutes while searching for a match is (IMO) a good indicator that the player base aint too big right now.
yet we keep sinking our money in to this product. i dont know what to tell you, as a founder, this whole hardpoint size sounds and smells like very bad business.
Edited by Karma Police, 07 October 2014 - 05:58 AM.
#278
Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:56 AM
Diversity thrives during times of balance.
Edited by Eddrick, 07 October 2014 - 06:08 AM.
#279
Posted 07 October 2014 - 06:01 AM
Edited by kapusta11, 07 October 2014 - 06:07 AM.
#280
Posted 07 October 2014 - 06:11 AM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users