128 replies to this topic

[Scratx]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

The difference between the ideas is the fact that weapons are not broken into small or large categories with this proposal, which would actually limit customization further with only certain weapon systems being able to be mounted in place of others -- with this system, to quote USPS, "if it fits it ships."

.



Most builds currently fielded with the exception of massive boats (both FLD and missile boats) would still be able to be fielded, albeit on less played chassis which would have downsides such as worse hit boxes or weapon locations. This is good for the fact that it increases diversity, rather than one or two designs dominating the entire game as we see in PGI's tier list or by watching any competitive team's "diverse" drop deck.

Yes, Hunchback 4G with Large Lasers in the arms, AC5 on the hunch and Medium Pulse Laser on the head. Huge balance problem, NERF. It's Hunchback 4G, must have AC/20 for more diversity! NERF!

Am I the only one laughing?

Seriously, if we can't mount bigger guns than what it comes stock with (or close enough), what do we do with the extra tonnage of putting endo-steel, ferro-fibrous and/or XL engines?

Have you considered that? Keep going. *nom nom popcorn*

[Tastian]

I appreciate the work you are doing; but the Vindicator, an already terrible mech, is getting severely handicapped by your system. Can you skip ahead to the Dire Wolf?

Edited by Tastian, 09 October 2014 - 11:28 AM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The CN9-A with sized hardpoint restrictions gains the uniqueness of being the only medium class 'Mech capable of mounting a Gauss rifle in its arm with unimpeded horizontal range of motion. However, the champion version and popular SRM boat build would become invalidated; at most the CN9-A would be able to carry 12 SRM's between three SRM-4 packs, or 6 SRM's with Artemis. In regards to LRM's, it would be able to carry at most an LRM-15 or an LRM-10 with artemis.



The CN9-AL becomes something of a larger version of most of the Vindicator variants; it can carry a PPC in the right arm, or two large class lasers (one in the arm, one in the CT) or up to four smaller laser systems. The maximum LRM's it could hold would be the stock LRM-10, or up to eight SRM's with two SRM-4's.



The CN9-D's ballistic hard points make it impossible to install any cannon combination larger than an AC/5 and AC/2. The missile hardpoint size restricts it to at most 15 LRM's without Artemis, or 10 SRM's with an SRM-6 + 4 combination without Artemis in the LT.



The Yen Lo Wang and the soon to be re-released CN9-AH would be able to carry any ballistic weapon combination it can currently carry in the game, due to the large size of the original AC/20 mounted in its arm including up to two Ultra AC/5's. Sized hard points would not restrict any foreseeable builds.

Scratx, on 09 October 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Seriously, if we can't mount bigger guns than what it comes stock with (or close enough), what do we do with the extra tonnage of putting endo-steel, ferro-fibrous and/or XL engines?

Have you considered that? Keep going. *nom nom popcorn*

You can save the money required to purchase them to buy different 'Mechs that can carry the weapons combinations that can no longer be made on the chassis you have and enjoy the fact that you no longer die when your side torso is taken out?

[ApolloKaras]

Scratx, on 09 October 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Yes, Hunchback 4G with Large Lasers in the arms, AC5 on the hunch and Medium Pulse Laser on the head. Huge balance problem, NERF. It's Hunchback 4G, must have AC/20 for more diversity! NERF!

Am I the only one laughing?

Seriously, if we can't mount bigger guns than what it comes stock with (or close enough), what do we do with the extra tonnage of putting endo-steel, ferro-fibrous and/or XL engines?

Have you considered that? Keep going. *nom nom popcorn*

I dunno... He's clearly contributing to this thread and its more well thought out than the popcorn pic. I think I'll wait this one out to see the entire picture before I judge it.

[Shibas]

So, that's nice and all, but what have you added by using this sized hard point system? You have taken away a lot of options, one being that you can't have a 3x SRM 6 centurion anymore, sure, 3 SRM 4s still work, but was that such an issue for it to be removed as an option? For the -A, the AC slot doesn't actually do anything outside of prevent an AC/20 which it can't hold on the arm anyway and the -D prevents you from even adding an AC/10 to replace the LB-X/10 because it's 1 slot too big; hell you can't even put on 2x AC/5s in the arm because of it. So, what exactly are these hard point sized restrictions creating other than a more restrictive mech build environment?

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The HBK-4G Hunchback becomes one of the few 'Mechs that can carry an AC/20 in the game (and one of two mediums, the other being the Centurion). However, due to the size of the AC/20 taking up all of the sized slots, it would no longer be able to carry two machine guns along with the AC/20. It would, however, be able to carry any other ballistic weapon in the game, and combinations of them such as triple AC/2's, or double (U)AC/5's. The supplementary laser systems would be capped out at medium or medium pulse lasers meaning no large lasers or PPC's in combination with a smaller autocannon could be carried by this variant.



The HBK-4H Hunchback cannot carry an AC/20 like the 4G, but it can carry various other ballistic weaponry including a Gauss rifle; the larger energy weapon slot in the right torso allows the HBK-4H Hunchback to carry a large class laser weapon to supplement the ballistic weapon in that torso, but the arms and head slots would be capped at small or medium class lasers.



The HBK-4J Hunchback would be able to carry at most twenty LRM's with its stock LRM-10 packs, or an LRM-15 with Artemis. Hard point size restrictions would limit the 4J's current ability to be a dedicated LRM boat. The right torso hard point, however, would be able to carry up to a PPC, which makes it one of the only Hunchback variants able to do so. The arm laser hard points, like most other Hunchback variants, would be restricted to single slot energy weapons.



The HBK-4P Hunchback's most popular configuration of staying near-stock and boating medium lasers would not be affected by hard point size restrictions; however, it would become one of the few medium 'Mechs capable of carrying three ER large lasers, a sniper role made popular by the SHD-2K Shadow Hawk (which would lack this ability with hardpoint size restrictions). It would also be able to carry at most two PPC's in the right torso, providing as much firepower as the standard AC/20 in the 4G without ammunition dependence but at the cost of greater heat build.



The HBK-4SP becomes unique that it is the only Hunchback capable of carrying large lasers in its articulated arms; SRM wise it is not affected by the amount of missiles it can field (unless Artemis is taken) -- for LRM's, it can carry a maximum of twenty missiles by way of two LRM-10 racks. Any builds that currently use PPC's would become invalidated, but most builds that currently use the 4SP as a quick, short range striker would be unaffected.



The Grid Iron would be able to swap out the Gauss rifle for a number of combinations of smaller ballistic systems (the largest being an Ultra AC/5 with an AC/2) or a 1-for-1 swap for an AC/10. It could carry at most 6 SRM's like it has currently, or up to 10 LRM's, provided they are unaugmented by Artemis. Like most of the other Hunchback configurations, it would be restricted to single slot energy weapons in its arms.

Shibas, on 09 October 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

So, that's nice and all, but what have you added by using this sized hard point system? You have taken away a lot of options, one being that you can't have a 3x SRM 6 centurion anymore, sure, 3 SRM 4s still work, but was that such an issue for it to be removed as an option? For the -A, the AC slot doesn't actually do anything outside of prevent an AC/20 which it can't hold on the arm anyway and the -D prevents you from even adding an AC/10 to replace the LB-X/10 because it's 1 slot too big; hell you can't even put on 2x AC/5s in the arm because of it. So, what exactly are these hard point sized restrictions creating other than a more restrictive mech build environment?

All in due time -- specific builds not able to built on certain chassis will still be able to be made on other ones, for instance the double AC/5 Centurion would still be able to be made on the CN9-AH, and the multiple SRM pack builds would still be available on other chassis, notably the Kintaro (which numerous but small missile points makes it well suited for SRM boating, even with size restrictions).

[Scratx]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

I dunno... He's clearly contributing to this thread and its more well thought out than the popcorn pic. I think I'll wait this one out to see the entire picture before I judge it.

Oh, I'm not telling him to stop. Why would I? I'd love if he just got to the bigger mechs, but since he wants to keep going this way.. *shrugs*

The hunchback build is an actual build I'm using, just FYI. And one that wouldn't survive any of the sized hardpoint proposals I've seen 'cept one (that doesn't actually prevent you from slapping bigger guns in, just penalizes you for doing so). It's hardly OP in any sense, or anywhere close to Meta. It's... *gasp* contributing to variety.

[occusoj]

No, in any case dont stop him. I want to see Catapults, Jaegers, Atlas, DW and TW.

[ApolloKaras]

occusoj, on 09 October 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

No, in any case dont stop him. I want to see Catapults, Jaegers, Atlas, DW and TW.

personally waiting for the Griffin 3M. That mech will be broken in this setup.

EDIT

By broken I mean outclassing everything

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 12:08 PM.

[Shibas]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

All in due time -- specific builds not able to built on certain chassis will still be able to be made on other ones, for instance the double AC/5 Centurion would still be able to be made on the CN9-AH, and the multiple SRM pack builds would still be available on other chassis, notably the Kintaro (which numerous but small missile points makes it well suited for SRM boating, even with size restrictions).

So, you are basically saying that each chassis should pretty much be their stock loadout or close to it with almost no variation to them-- well played. Once again, you are not creating anything new or unique from this. You are stifling and already semi-restrictive customization of a mech chassis for almost no benefit.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The TBT-3C comes with enough hard point size to allow decent sized missile racks in conjunction with Artemis. With a base ability to utilize two LRM-15's with artemis, so far with our revision of hard points it stands out as one of the best missile boats that would be available for the medium chassis with Artemis. The right arm lasers could be combined for a large class laser, or a pilot could choose to keep the smaller single hard point energy weapons, or perhaps upgrade them to pulse lasers.



The TBT-5J would be nowhere near as effective as a missile boat than the previous 3C variant; at most it can carry either the LRM-15 or an SRM-6 (with Artemis). The right arm, however, can carry several smaller energy weapons or up to a PPC, with the left arm being able to carry two single slot energy weapons or be combined for a large laser.



The TBT-5N Trebuchet would be less effective at being an LRM boat with artemis as the 3C (with Artemis it would be restricted to two LRM-10 racks), but would benefit from the ability to carry a PPC in the right arm for front loaded damage on top of the missiles it can carry. Still, with the ability to carry thirty LRM's unaugmented, it makes it one of the most capable missile boats of the medium class with hardpoint size restrictions in place.



The TBT-7K Trebuchet could carry either the PPC it has stock, or a combination of two smaller lasers (a large/medium laser combination would be the largest it could carry). The AC/5 could be broken up into two smaller cannons, either double AC/2's or double machine guns, or one of each. The missile rack in the right arm would at maximum be able to carry up two two SRM-4's or up to 10 LRM's, provided they are unaugmented by Artemis.



The TBT-7M variant would be able to carry some of the largest missile salvos of the medium 'mechs, with the ability to carry up to 40 LRM tubes (2 LRM-15's + an LRM-10 replacing the NARC), or up to eighteen SRM's without Artemis, or 16 SRM's with Artemis. The right arm laser slots could be combined to carry up to a large class laser. The SRM boat build would be similar to the current CN9-A champion build, with the exception that it can jump, but is regarded as having poor hitboxes due to its larger size.



The Loup De Guerre would be severely restricted from current due to the fact that in its stock configuration it utilizes very small missile hard points. Enlarging the hard points to allow larger missiles or energy weapons would probably be required to make this build viable if hard point sizes were added to the game. Without revision of its hard points, the LDG would carry at maximum of 16 SRM's (which would not be able to be augmented by Artemis), eight Streak SRM's, or twenty LRM's by way of four LRM-5 racks.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

All in due time -- specific builds not able to built on certain chassis will still be able to be made on other ones, for instance the double AC/5 Centurion would still be able to be made on the CN9-AH, and the multiple SRM pack builds would still be available on other chassis, notably the Kintaro (which numerous but small missile points makes it well suited for SRM boating, even with size restrictions).

What if I don't want to switch to the Kintaro? What if I want to keep playing SRM packs on...my Centurion?

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The GRF-1N Griffin would be restricted to at most a single PPC in the right arm. A combination of smaller weapons such as a large laser/medium laser combo or three single slot energy weapons could be used in its place. The LRM-10 rack does not fill the allocated three slot sized hardpoint, meaning that the LRM-10 could have artemis added, or be replaced for an LRM-15 rack without artemis. Up to 12 SRM's could be carried by means of three SRM-4 packs, or a single SRM-6 if Artemis is taken.



The GRF-1S Griffin would be able to carry a combination of energy weapons in its right arm, though it would be limited to a single PPC or two large lasers due to size limitations. The left torso missile hardpoints could carry at most 10 LRM's or eight SRM's.



The GRF-3M Griffin can carry a single energy weapon like currently, the largest being the ER PPC it comes with stock. The right torso LRM rack can be replaced with smaller LRM systems if Artemis is to be used. The most SRM's it would be able to carry (without Artemis) would be 18, with a mix of an SRM-6 and three SRM-4's. With Artemis that number is reduced to ten, by carrying an SRM-6 and 4 with artemis.



The GRF-1E Griffin can carry several combinations of energy weapons, though it would be restricted to being able to carry a single PPC if sized hardpoints were implemented. A triple ER large laser build, made popular by the SHD-2K Shadow Hawk would be capable of being built, though the lower slung arm lasers would make it more vulnerable to enemy fire.

Rebas Kradd, on 09 October 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

What if I don't want to switch to the Kintaro? What if I want to keep playing SRM packs on...my Centurion?

You could, you would just be restricted to a couple missiles less or sacrificing artemis -- you could still use SRM's, but a 'Mech with dedicated hardpoints towards it may be able to do it a bit better at the cost of perhaps not being able to carry an autocannon or gauss rifle like the Centurion could.

It would almost be as if certain chassis could do different things rather than each 'Mech be a generic skin that can do anything any 'mech with the same type hard point can do like we have currently.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 12:30 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

ou could, you would just be restricted to a couple missiles less or sacrificing artemis -- you could still use SRM's, but a 'Mech with dedicated hardpoints towards it may be able to do it a bit better at the cost of perhaps not being able to carry an autocannon or gauss rifle like the Centurion could.

It would almost be as if certain chassis could do different things rather than each 'Mech be a generic skin that can do anything any 'mech with the same type hard point can do like we have currently.

So...are you volunteering to stand at PGI's doorway and greet the angry mobs who are suddenly just no longer allowed to even deploy the builds they've been enjoying for months and months? This is enormously disruptive and not smart for PGI from a business and customer satisfaction standpoint.

It also fails to consider player style. Sometimes people just get acclimated to a build and find a good synergy with its playstyle, one that elevates their performance in it beyond what you'd expect from playing SpreadsheetWarrior. That's another niche that a hardpoint system completely steps on.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 09 October 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Rebas Kradd, on 09 October 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

So...are you volunteering to stand at PGI's doorway and greet the angry mobs who are suddenly just no longer allowed to even deploy the builds they've been enjoying for months and months? This is enormously disruptive and not smart for PGI from a business and customer satisfaction standpoint.

It also fails to consider player style. Sometimes people just get acclimated to a build and find a good synergy with its playstyle, one that elevates their performance in it beyond what you'd expect from playing SpreadsheetWarrior. That's another niche that a hardpoint system completely steps on.

Boy, you missed out in CB... They did this monthly.....

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Rebas Kradd, on 09 October 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

So...are you volunteering to stand at PGI's doorway and greet the angry mobs who are suddenly just no longer allowed to even deploy the builds they've been enjoying for months and months? This is enormously disruptive and not smart for PGI from a business and customer satisfaction standpoint.

It also fails to consider player style. Sometimes people just get acclimated to a build and find a good synergy with its playstyle, one that elevates their performance in it beyond what you'd expect from playing SpreadsheetWarrior. That's another niche that a hardpoint system completely steps on.

If they did implement such a large change to items players have purchased, perhaps even with real money (like the $500 Timber Wolf I have), they would need to have an amnesty period where players could refund current 'Mechs they find no longer fit their play style for full c-bills so players can repurchase 'Mechs with hardpoints that better suit their play style.

Player style is not stymied in this - in fact, as I pointed out prior and I will point out again, almost every build with the exception of the more grievous examples of boating are still capable of being built with this system, the exception being some chassis may no longer be able to carry them, but other chassis in the similar class or even 'Mech type will.

Spreadsheet warriors should rejoice in the fact that developing the best builds for each chassis now actually takes critical thought rather than just picking whichever 'Mech has the best hitbox geometry and jump jets.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

You've given me no reason to buy any other medium with the exception of the 3M... o.O

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

You've given me no reason to buy any other medium with the exception of the 3M... o.O

The Trebuchet and Kintaro can carry as much SRM's, but with Artemis as well (the TBT-7M could carry 16 SRM's with artemis compared to the 18 SRM's without artemis total by the GRF-3M), with the Treb being able to jump like the Griffin.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

With hardpoint size restrictions, the SHD-2K loses a popular variant that allows it to carry three ER large lasers in the torso; however, similar variants could be created on the Hunchback 4P or GRF chassis; at most the SHD-2K would be able to carry three single slot energy weapons, or a combination of a large class laser with a smaller system. The left torso LRM slots could carry at most 15 LRM's (either by a single LRM-15 or a combination of smaller racks), 10 artemis augmented LRM's, or up to 12 SRM's with three SRM-4 packs.



The SHD-5M can carry up to 25 LRM's or 15 with artemis, or a total of 10 SRM's (without artemis) -- because of the hardpoint number limitations already placed upon it, the SHD-5M would not have its missiles restricted, but it would no longer be able to carry a ballistic weapon larger than a Ultra AC/5. It would however be able to carry a combination of smaller autocannon in its torso such as double AC/2 or an AC/5 with an AC/2. The right arm could carry up to a single large class laser, which limits what it can currently carry from up to two PPC's.


Errata: The left arm laser hard point should be sized for two slots.

The SHD-2D Shadow Hawk would be restricted to at most fifteen LRM's or up to twelve SRM's without the ability to carry artemis. The single ballistic slot would be relegated to the stock AC/5 or a smaller AC/2 or machine gun. The SHD-2D would also lose any ability to carry an energy weapon larger than a large class laser, which it could carry one of in the left arm energy hard point.



The SHD-2H notably lacks the ability for the current champion build to be created if hardpoint limitations were set. With hardpoint size limitations, the SHD-2H could carry at most fifteen LRM's or twelve SRM's split between the torso and head hard points. The ballistic slots in the right torso would be restricted to at largest the single AC/5 it comes with, or it could be broken down for multiple smaller autocannons such as triple AC/2 or machine guns. The small energy hard point in the arm would be restricted from carrying anything larger than a single slot energy weapon, making the PPC from the champion variant impossible to be installed.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

Spreadsheet warriors should rejoice in the fact that developing the best builds for each chassis now actually takes critical thought rather than just picking whichever 'Mech has the best hitbox geometry and jump jets.

That doesn't even happen right now. It happened earlier in the year a lot more, mostly because SRMs were nonfunctional. But these days I see mediums of every type in the game with frequency, and I even see mechs of every type on the top of the scoreboard every once in a while. Good play is able to make a mech succeed, with a few exceptions.

A lot of people play certain chassis because they've been their Battletech favorites for years. Johnny loves (as an example) the Griffin, has loved the Griffin since it appeared. He wants to play a Griffin. He doesn't really give a f*** about anyone else's opinion of balance, he's got a build that works, he's got the mech he loves, and he's able to succeed through smart play. You're going to take that away from him?

Yes, the balancing process irritates people who lose their megabuilds. But that's typically limited to a few chassis, or coincides with the fresh validation of a weapon system. Your idea solves a problem that's already been significantly mitigated, and ignores other solutions. Your suggested amnesty period would soften the blow a little, but it would still rob the tinkerers of their joy in this game and leave a foul taste in people's mouths.

I don't have any delusions that you're going to change your mind about this, of course, but if you really want to give roles and viability to certain chassis, use positive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement. Move suboptimal variants up, instead of shoving others down (or out) for the sake of balance. That's what the upcoming quirk system seems intended to do - secure roles for variants while maintaining open customization. Best of both worlds.

This problem needs a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Part of that is because we've already traveled years down this road and turning back is not as easy as you want it to be.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 09 October 2014 - 02:38 PM.