128 replies to this topic

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Russ Bullock, on 03 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

If someone wants to make a true impact on PGI with sized hard points - pick a mech with lots of variants and lay out all the sizes for all the hard points on all the variants

Then compare that to the current game and come up with a true audit of what builds would still exist, which ones would disappear.

Although it might help removes some "problem builds" I wonder how many very good builds it might remove.

This is an exercise I that PGI will not have time for in the next couple of months as we work on CW phase 2.

Proposal: Sized hardpoints are a combination of the original equipment the 'Mech carries in its standard loadout, and the additional hard point system PGI has implemented in MechWarrior Online.

Intent: Limit the ability of front-loaded damage boats or massive missile boats, promote diversity among different chassis and variants, while still providing some ability for individual customization while keeping the intent of certain iconic 'Mechs and their roles consistent with the source universe material.

Implementation: 'Mechs will receive sized hardpoints which will combine the amount of critical slots the stock equipment it has loaded takes place, with the ability to load differing weapon systems that are less than or equal to the number of hardpoints PGI has determined the chassis to currently have. In the event of a chassis having less critical slots than hardpoints, the chassis will have the hardpoint size equal to the number of hardpoints. In the below examples, the size of hardpoints are denoted by bolded lines around the maximum weapon bay size. Weapon critical slots that are not used for weapons may be used for ammunition, heat sinks, endo steel, ferro fibrous or other equipment as current.

Here we go, starting Inner Sphere Light 'Mechs...


The LCT-1E Locust would have six energy hardpoints, three in each arm with three criticals per arm. Due to weight limitations, this hard point change would have little effect on possible variants.



The LCT-1M has single missile hard points in each arm, restricting a maximum of 10 LRM tubes (5 per arm), 8 SRM tubes (4 per arm), or 4 Streak SRM's; the center torso can hold up to a large class laser (ER, standard or pulse), or two smaller sized lasers. Like the LCT-1E, the LCT-1M remains largely unaffected by sized hardpoint change due to weight limitations.



The LCT-3M Locust can carry a large class laser (ER, standard, or pulse) in either or both arms (provided weight allows), or up to five smaller laser systems. This Locust variant, like the others, is largely unaffected by sized hard points due to weight limitations.

The LCT-3S Locust would be able to carry up to 16 SRM tubes, 8 Streak SRM tubes, or 20 LRM tubes provided tonnage allows. However, like other Locust variants, due to weight limitations it is unlikely sized hardpoints would affect customization options.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The COM-1B can carry a large class laser system with a smaller system or three smaller laser systems. The COM-1B can carry a maximum of four SRM tubes or five LRM tubes; hardpoint restrictions limit the COM-1B's ability to carry missiles by two SRM's or five LRM's.


The COM-1D is very similar to the COM-1B, with the exception that it can carry five more LRM tubes or two more SRM tubes in the center torso at the expense of the single-slot laser hard point in the left arm. Due to hardpoint size restrictions in the right arm, the COM-1D would not be able to carry a PPC.



The COM-2D Commando would be able to carry a maximum of twelve SRM tubes or twenty LRM tubes (provided weight allows). The single slot energy hardpoint in the arm restricts the COM-2D to a small or medium class laser -- the COM-2D could not carry a large laser like the 1 series, or a PPC.



The COM-3A Commando trades the ECM of the COM-2D for the ability to carry a second laser in the opposing arm. Due to hardpoint size limitations, the second laser would be restricted to a small or medium class laser. With a total of four missile critical slots, the COM-3A can carry the same number of missile tubes as the 2D.

[Xanquil]

As stated on the other threads like this, it won't fix anything. It does nothing to stock "boats", and makes a large portion of the mechs we currently no longer viable. It wouldn't get rid of ghost heat, and would just make a large majority of the player base angry. (mainly those that spent real money on mechs) It would get rid of ghost heat, and it won't solve the instant convergent pinpoint alpha issue.

The only good thing it would do is make mechs look more appropriate.

I would like to know what sized hardpoints would fix because It just causes more issues than it would fix.

[Corbon Zackery]

So far the only hardpoint issue being debated on right now is the splitting up of missile hard points into Universal, Fixed LRM, or Fixed SRM.

If I had my way there would be no hard point restrictions. This would open up customization and push it to the limit. While still keeping the same chassis.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The SDR-5D Spider loses its ability to carry two large class lasers or PPC's due to hardpoint limitation sizes; it can carry either a single large class laser in the arm to continue to harass and snipe at long ranges with ECM cover, or carry up to three small or medium class lasers.



The SDR-5K loses the ability to carry an large class laser in the center torso. It retains the ability to carry four machine guns.



The SDR-5V Spider can carry two small or medium class lasers (standard or pulse) or a single large class laser (ER, standard or pulse) -- no change in ability from current system.


The Hero Spider can no longer carry large lasers or PPC's, and is restricted to a maximum of four SRM tubes or five LRM tubes due to the hardpoint size restrictions.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 08 October 2014 - 05:06 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Xanquil, on 08 October 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

As stated on the other threads like this, it won't fix anything. It does nothing to stock "boats", and makes a large portion of the mechs we currently no longer viable. It wouldn't get rid of ghost heat, and would just make a large majority of the player base angry. (mainly those that spent real money on mechs) It would get rid of ghost heat, and it won't solve the instant convergent pinpoint alpha issue.

The only good thing it would do is make mechs look more appropriate.

I would like to know what sized hardpoints would fix because It just causes more issues than it would fix.

The stock "boats" in the game have much less front loaded damage or size of missile salvos. To mitigate loss to players who have previously purchased 'Mechs, any change this large to the system should allow players the ability to sell their previous 'Mechs back at full price.

Many of the configurations that are popular in the game will still be possible; the exception is many are moved to different chassis with less optimal hitboxes or weapons locations. This makes players diversify which 'mechs they choose to use for the loadouts they prefer rather than certain 'mechs being able to do everything with the best hitboxes and weapons locations.

Also, due to hardpoint sizes, a lot of 'Mechs will not be able to carry whichever weapons are currently considered the best, or "meta" -- the limitations on size of equipment means that players may have to add supplementary weapons that they would not normally take, such as single missile packs -- these suboptimal weapons configurations rather than the streamlined, super optimized competitive builds we see dominating the game currently should increase the time to kill for 'mechs.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The JR7-F would not be able to mount more than two large class lasers or any PPC's; however, other builds that it currently can run would be unaffected.



The JR7-F Jenner can carry up to two PPC's, two large class lasers (ER, standard or pulse) with two smaller class lasers, or up to six single slot energy weapon systems. Current builds would be largely unaffected by hardpoint size changes.



The JR7-K Jenner can carry up to two large lasers, or a combination of a large laser and two smaller lasers, or up to four single slot sized energy weapons. The single missile slot restricts the JR7-K Jenner with up to up to an SRM-4, a SSRM-2 or an LRM-5. The JR7-K would have slightly less ability to carry LRM's as it can currently carry up to an LRM-10.



The JR7-Oxide hero variant would be able to carry a maximum of 16 SRM tubes, down from the current 20 tubes it can currently carry -- a maximum of twenty LRM tubes dispersed between either four LRM-5's or two LRM-5's and a single LRM-10 in the CT could be carried.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

The stock "boats" in the game have much less front loaded damage or size of missile salvos. To mitigate loss to players who have previously purchased 'Mechs, any change this large to the system should allow players the ability to sell their previous 'Mechs back at full price.

Many of the configurations that are popular in the game will still be possible; the exception is many are moved to different chassis with less optimal hitboxes or weapons locations. This makes players diversify which 'mechs they choose to use for the loadouts they prefer rather than certain 'mechs being able to do everything with the best hitboxes and weapons locations.

Also, due to hardpoint sizes, a lot of 'Mechs will not be able to carry whichever weapons are currently considered the best, or "meta" -- the limitations on size of equipment means that players may have to add supplementary weapons that they would not normally take, such as single missile packs -- these suboptimal weapons configurations rather than the streamlined, super optimized competitive builds we see dominating the game currently should increase the time to kill for 'mechs.

Or, we will see a complete and total abandonment of already struggling chassis as people flock to the tiny handful of mechs that still run what they want.

Edited by Josef Nader, 08 October 2014 - 05:16 PM.

[Zordicron]

http://mwomercs.com/...zed-hardpoints/

No restrictions on any hardpoints. Possible to remove ghost heat, breaks up PPFLD loadouts, adjustable on a per variant basis. Effects already seen with clan AC's and lasers.

[Xanquil]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

The stock "boats" in the game have much less front loaded damage or size of missile salvos. To mitigate loss to players who have previously purchased 'Mechs, any change this large to the system should allow players the ability to sell their previous 'Mechs back at full price.

Current and future stock builds can and do have some massive alpha damage. And I seriously doubt that PGI could survive a full price sell back for the amount of mechs this would effect.

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Many of the configurations that are popular in the game will still be possible; the exception is many are moved to different chassis with less optimal hitboxes or weapons locations. This makes players diversify which 'mechs they choose to use for the loadouts they prefer rather than certain 'mechs being able to do everything with the best hitboxes and weapons locations.

Adding more restrictions to what can be placed in mechs only makes sub optimal chassis played less. It will not promote people to diversify the mechs they use.

Don't get me wrong I like the Idea of sized hardpoints, I just understand that they will not fix any of the core problems with the game.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

Or, we will see a complete and total abandonment of already struggling chassis as people flock to the tiny handful of mechs that still run what they want.

Several current popular builds will only be able to be run on less popular chassis/ones with downsides such as lack of jump jets or low slung weapons. It will be a tradeoff, and still, most of the death star alpha strike builds or sun-blotting missile builds will be mitigated or now have downsides like hit meshes.

Xanquil, on 08 October 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Current and future stock builds can and do have some massive alpha damage. And I seriously doubt that PGI could survive a full price sell back for the amount of mechs this would effect.


Adding more restrictions to what can be placed in mechs only makes sub optimal chassis played less. It will not promote people to diversify the mechs they use.

Don't get me wrong I like the Idea of sized hardpoints, I just understand that they will not fix any of the core problems with the game.

Allow players to sell the chassis they do not want anymore with changes for full c-bill price should not affect PGI at all. Several chassis deemed currently suboptimal will have utility and niche as several are now the only 'mechs able to carry certain weapons or combinations of weapons. Taking a page from Stock 'Mech Mondays, where many 'Mechs deemed uncompetitive or low tier were some of the best performing 'Mechs in the games.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 08 October 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Xarian]

Interesting idea, but you need to think of a way to deal with Artemis on mechs that don't have it stock.

[nitra]

all im seeing is how horible these proposed limitations is going to make light mechs.

forcing them into roles in a game system that provides no purpose for those roles.

hardpoint limitations is nothing more than a mechanic to force everyone into an approved metric of conformity. to provide a safe and easy to play game enviroment, that removes surprise elements from the feild. allowing them to build a restrictive meta gameplay archtype that removes creativity and individulism. much wich has already been lost due to hsr and the speed nerfs.

this hardpoint limitation system will further increase the need to stay grouped and play murder ball.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

nitra, on 08 October 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

all im seeing is how horible these proposed limitations is going to make light mechs.

forcing them into roles in a game system that provides no purpose for those roles.

hardpoint limitations is nothing more than a mechanic to force everyone into an approved metric of conformity. to provide a safe and easy to play game enviroment, that removes surprise elements from the feild. allowing them to build a restrictive meta gameplay archtype that removes creativity and individulism. much wich has already been lost due to hsr and the speed nerfs.

this hardpoint limitation system will further increase the need to stay grouped and play murder ball.

Most of the light 'Mechs competitive builds are unaffected at all by hardpoint sizes - they are already limited by weight limitations more than any sized hardpoints.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

Several current popular builds will only be able to be run on less popular chassis/ones with downsides such as lack of jump jets or low slung weapons. It will be a tradeoff, and still, most of the death star alpha strike builds or sun-blotting missile builds will be mitigated or now have downsides like hit meshes.

People aren't going to run good loadouts on bad mechs. No amount of being the only PPC boat in the game will save the Awesome from being a pile of trash (as a dedicated Awesome pilot who gets an unreasonable number of jollies from the fat old girl, she's trash). They're going to find the best builds on the best mechs and play those exclusively. This system does nothing but restrict those of us who enjoy playing bad mechs and putting good loadouts on them.

Saying that people would play bad mechs just so they can play the same loadouts is showing an absolute and total misunderstanding of the mindset of the "competitive" player.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

The Hero Spider can no longer carry large lasers or PPC's, and is restricted to a maximum of four SRM tubes or five LRM tubes due to the hardpoint size restrictions.

I wasn't aware of anyone complaining about that mech. Some grumbling about the hitbox, but that's about it. Why are throwing aside perfectly valid builds?

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The hero Firestarter Ember can carry up to two large lasers or four single slot energy weapons, but are restricted from carrying PPC's with hard point size restrictions. A total of four single slot (Machine guns or AC/2) can be carried, weight allowing. Minimal effect to current "meta" configurations which closely match the stock variant with larger engine sizing.



The FS9-H can carry up to three large lasers, six single slot energy weapons, or a combination of them, but is restricted from carrying PPC's. The ballistic slots in the side torsos can carry a single slot AC/2 or MG each. Minimal effect to current builds as most do not run larger autocannons or particle cannons.


The FS9-K has the ability to mount up to two PPC's, or a combination of smaller energy weapons including up to three large lasers or eight medium lasers. The FS9-K is largely unaffected by the change of sized hardpoints.



The FS9-S cannot carry PPC's like the FS9-K, but can still carry up to three large lasers or several single slot energy weapons. The AMS slots are unaffected by size restrictions.

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Saying that people would play bad mechs just so they can play the same loadouts is showing an absolute and total misunderstanding of the mindset of the "competitive" player.

If every 'mech had limitations and sub-optimal hard points rather than every 'Mech serving as a generic skin for whatever weapons players want, they decision to choose sub-optimal hit boxes as a trade off for effective weapons becomes a very real choice even competitive players will have to make.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 08 October 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

just base hardpoint size on the amount of structural hitpoints a particular hitbox has. more structural hitpoints more room. start with this, 4hp per slot. commando has 8hp in an arm, so two energy slots if it comes with an energy weapon in that arm. firestarter has 12hp, so three slots if it comes with a, well you get the idea.

note these are not hard points. 2 energy slots is two one slot energy weapons or one two slot energy weapon.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 08 October 2014 - 05:42 PM.

[Xanquil]

The thing is Hardpoint size restrictions are just like ghost heat, a system almost no one wants and fails in doing what it is intended to do.

It just isn't a viable option for balance.

On the other hand if we didn't have the "magic alpha strikes" than sized hardpoints would be a welcome addition ad it would make each Mech have more of a "character".

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Battlecruiser, on 08 October 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

just base hardpoint size on the amount of structural hitpoints a particular hitbox has. more structural hitpoints more room. start with this, 4hp per slot. commando has 8hp in an arm, so two energy slots if it comes with an energy weapon in that arm. firestarter has 12hp, so three slots if it comes with a, well you get the idea.

note these are not hard points. 2 energy slots is two one slot energy weapons or one two slot energy weapon.

i had to get up from the computer, i didnt get to finish my thought. to continue:

and for mechs that have multiple weapons, lets say the stalker, there are missiles and energy weapons in the arms, but a total of 7 slots. these slots can either be for energy or missile but with variant perks giving bonuses to a particular kind of weapon.

however, in order to satisfy high slottage weapon requirements, if a variant comes with equipment that exceeds in slots the hitpoint of the weapon section, then that is a special quirk of the variant to allow an unusual amount of weaponry or heavy weaponry of a specific type. The only real issue i can see arising is that in such a system machine guns and big engines immediately becomes the meta due to their unusual effectiveness against armor.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 08 October 2014 - 05:54 PM.