336 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

Please describe what you think the "locked" hardpoint system means? I think we're talking past each other

A MW4 based system. Each Mech has a predefined set # of slots, by weapon type, distributed across the chassis, hopefully all different across a vast array of Mechs, that are permanent.

Example: A 2 slot Energy in the left arm so no 3 slot Energy ever be allowed and that never changes.

You have a different "locked hard point" system?

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 October 2014 - 08:11 AM.

[Why Run]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

I guess what we need now, if we are to keep going forward, is a definition of BOAT.

2PPC's and 2 AC5's under the current MWO weapon stats is not even CLOSE to a BOAT.

Now, 12 ML's (60 Alpha) on one chassis. That may fit the bill as a Boat...

But which is more effective? Pre-Victor nerf and soon to be post-unnerf, I wager the Victor is much more effective, and hence was the most used mech (also why it got HAMMERED into oblivion).. The 12MLs did more damage, but was still too hot for sustained fighting. Maybe once up close and you could afford a shut down, but you're a medium with paper armor.

Still, i don't think we're on the same page as hardpoint restrictions...

[Why Run]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

A MW4 based system. Each Mech has a predefined set # of slots, by weapon type, that are permanent. A 3 slot Ballistic in the left arm never changes.

You have a different "locked hard point" system?

Well yes, for IS, that's generally correct until the IS Omni system. The result being, you can't jam PPCs into 2 slot hardpoints, but you can still have 6x 2 slot hardpoints (4P, Nova-Prime), that allows for diversity in configurations. You'd fit less multi-LRM15s/20s, except for the obvious, but more uses for single LRM20s. You'd need SRMs more, but you'd no longer dump the SRMs in favor of a PPC (VICTOR - looking at you!), heat and weight being a factor...

Your use of the term "locked" is deceptive. It's restricted to slot size, but except for the largest weapons, Ac10/20, gauss, LRM15/20 (would think about this- most effective missile boats use 10s)(could make ERPPC 4 slots, also consider others), you could still jam in many different combos. Light gauss would have a place later on, light ppcs. SLs would be a great space filler, and could be unnerfed. SHORT RANGE, but dangerous. Right now they are a joke. SRM 2s?

[Koniving]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Saying that sized hardpoints does anything but remove 90-95% of the mechs from the game as viable choices is delusional. Right now, I can salvage bad mechs by putting good loadouts on them. I can tweak, pluck, pick, and modify the bottom of the barrel mechs until they suit my playstyle and I figure out something that I like with them.

For example, my DRG-1C? It could never exist if it's stock loadout dictated it's hardpoints. I'm not really sure what -could- exist on a 1C, given it's incredibly limited hardpoints already.

Well, you say, they could just give the 1C bigger, better hardpoints!

Well then, what's the bloody point and/or difference with what we have now?

The Dragon 1-C got screwed.
First and foremost, lets get it out there now. The reason the Dragon 1C's hardpoints suck at all is because it had the tonnage dedicated to armor that is equal to a Stalker, stock, even though it got screwed on about 7/8ths of that last half ton. (Stalker has 13 tons of armor. Dragon 1C tabletop stock has 13 tons of armor, Dragon 1-C can only effectively use 12.5 tons and 1/8ths of a half ton armor).

Since every mech can equip max armor, the Dragon 1C got the short end of the stick and even the hardpoint inflation PGI has given it doesn't do much to save it.

This is why the Dragon 1C suffers.

Enter my hardpoint system. In special cases where the mech has substantially high armor and absolute garbage for 'hardpoints' because of said high armor, larger slots could be given.

"What's a larger slot gonna do for me?"
Before we begin, I should mention that the design within Battletech is that small weapons should be boated and large weapons should be difficult to impossible to boat.

In MWO it is impossible to genuinely boat small weapons due to MWO's hardpoint system which holds the same value for a small laser as it does for an ER PPC. If given the choice, space and tonnage which would you prefer if you could only have one? Exactly.

It's the same issue we have with light and medium mechs, if you can only have one mech you will always go for the biggest one that serves your purpose; why use a Locust if you only get one mech? Now if you could get 5 Locusts to 1 Atlas, that's a whole different story! Now you have a real choice.

This principle is also applied in my hardpoint concept. It also used canon-elements to design the tiers of hardpoints, too. Specifically the designs of missile launchers.

Battletech, as canon, developed its own hardpoint system. This system was and is only genuinely used for campaigns in which the concept is that if you switch this weapon for another weapon, your time to make the changes is greatly reduced compared to other changes which are as normal or greatly increased (example trying to stuff an LRM-20 on a mech only built for an LRM-5 would take a longer than normal time modifying and patchworking the mech, with a high chance of failures and flaws [negative design quirks].)

While I don't plan on doing craziness to that extent, I used it as a basis for my concept.

So, right now, this is the canon hardpoint values of Battletech in regards to missiles.

Quote

Missiles, I used a canon fluff from the MRM entries on Sarna to decide the three tier system. Though Battletech actually has a five tier system.

• SRMs 2-4, streaks 2-4, LRM-5, Mech Mortar/1 = class 1.
  
• SRM-6, Streak 6, LRM-10, MRM-10, Mortar/2, NARC= class 2.
  
• LRM-15, MRM-20, mortar/4 = class 3.
  
• LRM-20, MRM-30, mortar/8 = class 4 (merged these with class 3).
  
• Arrow IV, MRM-40, Long Tom = class 5 (merged with class 3 for now).

I'm not sure if I should take the hardpoint system so far as to do 5 classes/tiers and if I do I would have to make some tiers backwards-incompatible. This is because of the nature of which your Dragon would benefit. Assuming the 5 tier system, if you take a class 3 for example, you can equip 1 class II + 1 class I, or 3 class I weapons. (In other words if you had an LRM-15, you can equip 3 LRM-5s instead, or an LRM-10 and an LRM-5, or an LRM-10 and an SRM-4, etc.)

So now we return to your Dragon.
As I said it got the crap-end of the stick and unless we start limiting armor per variant, the only thing we can do is inflate the available hardpoint size. Keep in mind that this is simply a rapid concept, I'm still working on the light mechs and after I wrote the following I compared it to other mechs and may change it in some way or another. I'm using this layout anyway to give you an idea of what would happen if you had said larger hardpoints, especially to give you an idea of why there is incentive to run smaller weapons.

DRG-1C

• Current: 1 ballistic, 4 energy\, 1 missile
  
• New: 1 Class III ballistic, 1 Class III energy (shoulder), 1 Class II energy (left arm), 1 Class II missile.

Possible equipment:

• Right Arm. Class III limit.
  
  • 1 AC/20 (either removes lower arm actuator or simply isn't available, but this is the size hardpoint you'd need to get one).
    
  • 1 Gauss
    
  • Up to 2 of any of the following Class II weapons provided they fit into the arm: AC/10, LBX-10, UAC/5
    
  • Up to 3 of the following Class I weapons provided they fit into the arm: AC/2, AC/5.
    
  • Up to [6] of the following Class I weapon: MGs. (This may vary in the future).
    
  • A combination of 1 Class II and 1 class I weapon (except MGs which can be 2).
• Left Shoulder: Class III limit.
  
  • 1 PPC-type weapon
    
  • 2 Large-type laser weapons.
    
  • 3 medium-type laser weapons.
    
  • 4 small-type laser weapons.
    
  • 1 large and 1 medium-type laser weapons.
    
  • 1 large and 2 small-type laser weapons.
    
  • 2 medium and 1 small-type laser weapons.
• Left Arm: Class II-limit.
  
  • 1 Large-type laser (ER, LL, LPL).
    
  • 2 Medium-type lasers. (ER, ML, MPL as applicable).
    
  • 3 small-type lasers. (ER, SL, SPL as applicable).
    
  • 1 medium and 1 small type laser.
• Center Torso: Class II missile hardpoint.
  
  • Any 1 of the following Class II weapons: LRM-10, NARC missile beacon, SRM-6.
    
  • Any 2 of the following Class I: SRM-2, Streak SRM-2, SRM-4, LRM-5.
    
  • Artemis available where applicable but the slots restrict some possibilities.

There. Happy? Your build is still entirely possible.

Keep in mind that the Dragon 1C is one of a few special cases in MWO where it would get a higher than normal 'size' inflation for its weapons, due to its canon weapons being very limited due to high armor weight with no flexibility in engine.

(But as I noted just before this started, this initial idea is likely to change especially since I look at other Dragons and see problems already, for example another Dragon variant is more likely to have an arm-mounted Class III weapon and the 1C might not be in possession of a Class III ballistic hardpoint.)

Given some time, I'll be doing a huge post covering my concept and every suggested hardpoint adjustment. Locust players should be really happy with me.

Edited by Koniving, 09 October 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[Why Run]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

The Dragon 1-C got screwed.
First and foremost, lets get it out there now. The reason the Dragon 1C's hardpoints suck at all is because it had the tonnage dedicated to armor that is equal to a Stalker, stock, even though it got screwed on about 1/8th of that last half ton.

Since every mech can equip max armor, the Dragon 1C got the short end of the stick and even the hardpoint inflation PGI has given it doesn't do much to save it.

This is why the Dragon 1C suffers.

Enter my hardpoint system. In special cases where the mech has substantially high armor and absolute garbage for 'hardpoints' because of said high armor, larger slots could be given.

"What's a larger slot gonna do for me?"
Before we begin, I should mention that the design within Battletech is that small weapons should be boated and large weapons should be difficult to impossible to boat.

In MWO it is impossible to genuinely boat small weapons due to MWO's hardpoint system which holds the same value for a small laser as it does for an ER PPC. If given the choice, space and tonnage which would you prefer if you could only have one? Exactly.

It's the same issue we have with light and medium mechs, if you can only have one mech you will always go for the biggest one that serves your purpose; why use a Locust if you only get one mech? Now if you could get 5 Locusts to 1 Atlas, that's a whole different story! Now you have a real choice.

This principle is also applied in my hardpoint concept. It also used canon-elements to design the tiers of hardpoints, too. Specifically the designs of missile launchers.

Battletech, as canon, developed its own hardpoint system. This system was and is only genuinely used for campaigns in which the concept is that if you switch this weapon for another weapon, your time to make the changes is greatly reduced compared to other changes which are as normal or greatly increased (example trying to stuff an LRM-20 on a mech only built for an LRM-5 would take a longer than normal time modifying and patchworking the mech, with a high chance of failures and flaws [negative design quirks].)

While I don't plan on doing craziness to that extent, I used it as a basis for my concept.

So, right now, this is the canon hardpoint values of Battletech in regards to missiles.

I'm not sure if I should take the hardpoint system so far as to do 5 classes/tiers and if I do I would have to make some tiers backwards-incompatible. This is because of the nature of which your Dragon would benefit. Assuming the 5 tier system, if you take a class 3 for example, you can equip 1 class II + 1 class I, or 3 class I weapons. (In other words if you had an LRM-15, you can equip 3 LRM-5s instead, or an LRM-10 and an LRM-5, or an LRM-10 and an SRM-4, etc.)

So now we return to your Dragon.
As I said it got the crap-end of the stick and unless we start limiting armor per variant, the only thing we can do is inflate the available hardpoint size. Keep in mind that this is simply a rapid concept, I'm still working on the light mechs and after I wrote the following I compared it to other mechs and may change it in some way or another. I'm using this layout anyway to give you an idea of what would happen if you had said larger hardpoints, especially to give you an idea of why there is incentive to run smaller weapons.

DRG-1C

• Current: 1 ballistic, 4 energy\, 1 missile
  
• New: 1 Class III ballistic, 1 Class II energy (shoulder), 1 Class III energy (left arm), 1 Class II missile.

Possible equipment:

• Right Arm. Class III limit.
  
  • 1 AC/20 (either removes lower arm actuator or simply isn't available, but this is the size hardpoint you'd need to get one).
    
  • 1 Gauss
    
  • Up to 2 of any of the following Class II weapons provided they fit into the arm: AC/10, LBX-10, UAC/5
    
  • Up to 3 of the following Class I weapons provided they fit into the arm: AC/2, AC/5.
    
  • Up to [6] of the following Class I weapon: MGs. (This may vary in the future).
    
  • A combination of 1 Class II and 1 class I weapon (except MGs which can be 2).
• Left shoulder: Class II-limit.
  
  • 1 Large-type laser (ER, LL, LPL).
    
  • 2 Medium-type lasers. (ER, ML, MPL as applicable).
    
  • 3 small-type lasers. (ER, SL, SPL as applicable).
    
  • 1 medium and 1 small type laser.
• Left arm: Class III limit.
  
  • 1 PPC-type weapon
    
  • 2 Large-type laser weapons.
    
  • 3 medium-type laser weapons.
    
  • 4 small-type laser weapons.
    
  • 1 large and 1 medium-type laser weapons.
    
  • 1 large and 2 small-type laser weapons.
    
  • 2 medium and 1 small-type laser weapons.
• Center Torso: Class II missile hardpoint.
  
  • Any 1 of the following Class II weapons: LRM-10, NARC missile beacon, SRM-6.
    
  • Any 2 of the following Class I: SRM-2, Streak SRM-2, SRM-4, LRM-5.
    
  • Artemis available where applicable but the slots restrict some possibilities.

There. Happy? Keep in mind that the Dragon 1C is one of a few special cases in MWO where it would get a higher than normal 'size' inflation for its weapons, due to its canon weapons being very limited due to high armor weight with no flexibility in engine.


Given some time, I'll be doing a huge post covering my concept and every suggested hardpoint adjustment.

HE GETS IT! HE GETS IT! It's nice to hear someone who actually gets the concept. The battlefield would be again filed with a variety of effects, instead of the gauss ping and the ppc flare (and in pug world, the LRM rain!)

[Lightfoot]

It's too late for sized hardpoints. Unless PGI rolls back the Gauss Rifle de-sync, Ghost heat, and DHS 1.4 which were put in place to replace sized hardpoints. I don't see this happening, despite how horrible these nerfs make gameplay for players who know how to play MechWarrior already.

The Gauss Rifle de-sync, Ghost heat, and DHS 1.4 are to limit options to the newbie MechWarrior level from a company that didn't understand (at least at the beginning) you can control the config's maximum damage (if that is what you want) with sized hardpoints and a hard heat cap. The two of those block 2x Gauss, if you want, and Energy Boats which can sometimes dodge most size constraints.

MWO's time for sized hardpoints is past or requires an entire rebuild of the game and it's mechs and weapons.

Edited by Lightfoot, 09 October 2014 - 08:20 AM.

[Why Run]

Hey remember, you could also fix the armor changes too. The reason the armor is not as effective here is how it was scaled, internals as well. Everyone forgets to increase TTK they upped armor dramatically making being overarmored, overkill. It doesn't help you with the PP/FLD meta which can target with multiple weapons, one location and ignore the rest of the armor!

It's not really too late. You just have to make some modifications. Energy boats are still hot! They won't multi alpha. But they won't be largely useless either. I would wager they are wasting just as much time with the constant nerf/tweak/test/nerf/new content/ startover process and all to solve the boating meta problem.

Edited by Why Run, 09 October 2014 - 08:22 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Having read said Threads many of the proposed restrictions are made by players who see it "their" way or the highway. That does not assume anything but the obvious as is always the case around here.

It is about what "they" want and not what is "best" for MWO in the long term, big picture kind of way, sadly.

and yet several of the proponents of this thread, the "no hardpoint restriction" people have basically said the same thing. "My way or the highway", "restrict hardpoints and I'm gone"

We all want what is best for MWO, but we see different things as being best and the road to get there as different ways.

Same as politics. The Right sees the Left as the "bads", and the Left sees the Right as the "bads". So which is really the "bads"?

[IceSerpent]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

None, other than I read that even if a HP system was tried, GH is not going away.

This wouldn't make any sense - the purpose of GH is to prevent/limit boating of certain weapons, the purpose of HP is exactly the same. There's no reason to have both simultaneously.

Quote

I guess confirmation of either one by PGI is needed for anything but further one sided discourse to continue.

That certainly would be nice.

[Why Run]

RussianWolf, on 09 October 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

and yet several of the proponents of this thread, the "no hardpoint restriction" people have basically said the same thing. "My way or the highway", "restrict hardpoints and I'm gone"

We all want what is best for MWO, but we see different things as being best and the road to get there as different ways.

Same as politics. The Right sees the Left as the "bads", and the Left sees the Right as the "bads". So which is really the "bads"?

Right, and the current system has mindnumbing and seemingly irrational mechanics to fix meta-bats which take forever to figure out and are constantly changing. Imagine if you were a gauss user, pre-nerf, and never got on the forums? Suddenly you don't know how to use it!

[Ultimax]

Thecure, on 09 October 2014 - 04:28 AM, said:

They are already resticting my choices with ghost heat.

This is nonsense.


You can build it, you can run it, the only thing you can't do is alpha everything all of the time.

This is my STK-3F build, and this is still one of the best long range support builds the IS has IMO.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 October 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[Josef Nader]

I own 100+ mechs, and not a single one mounts a PPC/AC5 combo (actually, that's a lie. My Maurader Orion-K mounts a pair of PPCs and a single AC/5. Watch out for the meta humping stock loadout!).

I am a collector. I love variety. I rarely play a single mech Kore than a few matches in a row, because every mech in this game plays differently and they're all a blast to figure out how to make work.

Don't believe me?

Let's compare.

The AC20 Blackjack vs the AC20 Hunchback vs the AC20 Shadow Hawk. All three have high mounted ballisitic hard points and can mount 3 medium lasers as backup weapons. Yet all three are very different, and despite having the same role and same weapons the innate capabilities of the chassis have a strong effect on how they are actually used.

Blackjack
Pros
-Small hitboxes and size. A lot of firepower on a small target.
-Jump Capable
-Fast
-Hard to Disarm

Cons
-Must run an XL engine to fit enough ammo and move quickly
-Thin armor relegates it to a purely ambush role, and it has very little staying power once the opponent turns around
-Average torso twist with arms locked to torso makes fighting fast moving targets tricky

Hunchback
Pros
-Extremely wide torso twist gives it a strong advantage in turning battles
-Small profile for its armor levels. Very good hitboxes, with one exception
-Can fire its arm weapons past directly behind it, once again giving it a huge advantage in turning battles

Cons
-Huge hunch is hittable from almost every direction and is tough to shield
-No jump jets

Shadow Hawk
Pros
-Jump Jets
-Great armor and hitboxes for a medium

Cons
-Large size. Easy to hit.
-Worst torso twist on the list. Suffers in turning battles, especially if you don't use jump jets to the fullest.
-Requires larger and heavier engines to achieve the same speed (275 is three tons heavier than the 250, eating up a lot of the extra tonmage the Hawk gets).

On the surface, these mechs should play identically according to the forumwarriors, yet anyone who's played all three of them will openly attest to their very different playstyles. My Hunchback charges in close and relies on its ability to out-turn an opponent, while my Blackjack hides in ambush before leaping out with its jump jets, alphaing, and fleeing before my opponent can draw a bead. My Shadow Hawk, on the other hand, uses its superior armor and jump jets to tangle with heavier mechs side by side with my team's heavies. They're very different, and in a much more elegant way than arbitrary hard point size restrictions.

Edited by Josef Nader, 09 October 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[Why Run]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

I own 100+ mechs, and not a single one mounts a PPC/AC5 combo (actually, that's a lie. My Maurader OrionOrion-K mounts a pair of PPCs and a single AC/5. Watch out for the meta humping stock loadout!).

I am a collector. I love variety. I rarely play a single mech Kore than a few matches in a row, because every mech in this game plays differently and they're all a blast to figure out how to make work.

Don't believe me?

Let's compare.

The AC20 Blackjack vs the AC20 Hunchback vs the AC20 Shadow Hawk. All three have high mounted ballisitic hard points and can mount 3 medium lasers as backup weapons. Yet all three are very different, and despite having the same role and same weapons the innate capabilities of the chassis have a strong effect on how they are actually used.

Blackjack
Pros
-Small hitboxes and size. A lot of firepower on a small target.
-Jump Capable
-Fast
-Hard to Disarm

Cons
-Must run an XL engine to fit enough ammo and move quickly
-Thin armor relegates it to a purely ambush role, and it has very little staying power once the opponent turns around
-Average torso twist with arms locked to torso makes fighting fast moving targets tricky

Hunchback
Pros
-Extremely wide torso twist gives it a strong advantage in turning battles
-Small profile for its armor levels. Very good hitboxes, with one exception
-Can fire its arm weapons past directly behind it, once again giving it a huge advantage in turning battles

Cons
-Huge hunch is hittable from almost every direction and is tough to shield
-No jump jets

Shadow Hawk
Pros
-Jump Jets
-Great armor and hitboxes for a medium

Cons
-Large size. Easy to hit.
-Worst torso twist on the list. Suffers in turning battles, especially if you don't use jump jets to the fullest.
-Requires larger and heavier engines to achieve the same speed (275 is three tons heavier than the 250, eating up a lot of the extra tonmage the Hawk gets).

On the surface, these mechs should play identically according to the forumwarriors, yet anyone who's played all three of them will openly attest to their very different playstyles. My Hunchback charges in close and relies on its ability to out-turn an opponent, while my Blackjack hides in ambush before leaping out with its jump jets, alphaing, and fleeing before my opponent can draw a bead. My Shadow Hawk, on the other hand, uses its superior armor and jump jets to tangle with heavier mechs side by side with my team's heavies. They're very different, and in a much more elegant way than arbitrary hard point size restrictions.

What's your point relative to this conversation? That would likely be unchanged. Your Ac20 would be more effective relative to current, and overall you might actually have more fun on the battlefield, because you could use your short range build as a brawler, instead of being PPC meta sniped...

None of those would be exceptional, but they would all be competitive. Everything would be more competitive!

Edited by Why Run, 09 October 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[ApolloKaras]

Xarian, on 08 October 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Yes, because one random guy somehow outweighs the many, many people asking for similar systems (that's sarcasm). You could've chosen to post in one of those many threads in an attempt to actually discuss the issue; instead you decided to make one of these obnoxious and banal "Dear PGI" threads that (let me assure you) nobody likes or appreciates. See what I did there?

I'm with the OP, I'm sure as many many are. This notion about the size hard points is going to kill several /many mechs. You will find very quickly that the K2 be shelved, shadow hawk, maybe the Cataphract. Do you all not realize that the system PGI has put in has given us the best bud diversity that actually makes sense? MW4 system with terrible, and MW 3 was too open. 12 streaks on anything you want lol. I don't want to look at a mech visually and say well.. It's a k2 I'll just arm it and leave it move on to something more pressing. I know all it will have left is med pulse and mguns. At least with the quirk system OVER the sized hard points I might be surprised at the k2. Might be dual 20 it dual Gauss Lol. Build diversity ftw and it gives longevity to these other chassis.

Also ppc meta snipe hasn't been in for a while. If you're getting hammered by ppc it's because the pilot is a good shot. It moves at only 850m/s...

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 08:41 AM.

[Lightfoot]

By the way, sized hardpoints are boxes with fixed criticals. You then fill those boxes with whatever you want if the weapon(s) is/are the correct type. Two Large Lasers or 4 Medium Lasers, or 1 PPC for an Energy hardpoint with 4 criticals, for example.

That creates a restrictive size format that can adapt based on range and allows players reasonable creative input in their combat experience. MWO's biggest weakness at the moment is that PGI is forcing a style of gameplay on players and MechWarrior's greatest asset is that it frees players to invent their own preferred style of gameplay. That is what sets MechWarrior apart from any other shooter or really any giant robot game and let's it shine like a beacon of creative player gaming.

Edited by Lightfoot, 09 October 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Koniving]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

On the surface, these mechs should play identically according to the forumwarriors, yet anyone who's played all three of them will openly attest to their very different playstyles. My Hunchback charges in close and relies on its ability to out-turn an opponent, while my Blackjack hides in ambush before leaping out with its jump jets, alphaing, and fleeing before my opponent can draw a bead. My Shadow Hawk, on the other hand, uses its superior armor and jump jets to tangle with heavier mechs side by side with my team's heavies. They're very different, and in a much more elegant way than arbitrary hard point size restrictions.

I can agree with you here and I'm glad I'm not the only one to see that.

But to counter, I ask that you consider the following:
The Blackjack can be copied across 3 out of 5 variants. What's so unique about that?
The Hunchback can be copied across 3 out of 6 variants. Again, what reason might you have to want two different Hunchbacks if both can run the same build in exactly the same way?
The Shadowhawks... 4 (don't count [c] variants) out of 5 variants can run exactly the same build.

This brings forth a big question: Why use any other variant?
That's what sized hardpoints is hoping to address.

Also consider this:
A Spider can do everything an Urban mech can do but better, being skinnier, faster, etc., etc., etc. Especially since the weapon models on the Spider are so tiny (much like the Firestarter).
Why use an Urban mech?
Because the Urban mech can carry bigger guns, or so it would be with sized hardpoints.
Similar is true of the Panther and Hollander.

Edited by Koniving, 09 October 2014 - 08:42 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

The Dragon 1-C got screwed.
First and foremost, lets get it out there now. The reason the Dragon 1C's hardpoints suck at all is because it had the tonnage dedicated to armor that is equal to a Stalker, stock, even though it got screwed on about 7/8ths of that last half ton. (Stalker has 13 tons of armor. Dragon 1C tabletop stock has 13 tons of armor, Dragon 1-C can only effectively use 12.5 tons and 1/8ths of a half ton armor).

Since every mech can equip max armor, the Dragon 1C got the short end of the stick and even the hardpoint inflation PGI has given it doesn't do much to save it.

This is why the Dragon 1C suffers.

Enter my hardpoint system. In special cases where the mech has substantially high armor and absolute garbage for 'hardpoints' because of said high armor, larger slots could be given.

"What's a larger slot gonna do for me?"
Before we begin, I should mention that the design within Battletech is that small weapons should be boated and large weapons should be difficult to impossible to boat.

In MWO it is impossible to genuinely boat small weapons due to MWO's hardpoint system which holds the same value for a small laser as it does for an ER PPC. If given the choice, space and tonnage which would you prefer if you could only have one? Exactly.

It's the same issue we have with light and medium mechs, if you can only have one mech you will always go for the biggest one that serves your purpose; why use a Locust if you only get one mech? Now if you could get 5 Locusts to 1 Atlas, that's a whole different story! Now you have a real choice.

This principle is also applied in my hardpoint concept. It also used canon-elements to design the tiers of hardpoints, too. Specifically the designs of missile launchers.

Battletech, as canon, developed its own hardpoint system. This system was and is only genuinely used for campaigns in which the concept is that if you switch this weapon for another weapon, your time to make the changes is greatly reduced compared to other changes which are as normal or greatly increased (example trying to stuff an LRM-20 on a mech only built for an LRM-5 would take a longer than normal time modifying and patchworking the mech, with a high chance of failures and flaws [negative design quirks].)

While I don't plan on doing craziness to that extent, I used it as a basis for my concept.

So, right now, this is the canon hardpoint values of Battletech in regards to missiles.



I'm not sure if I should take the hardpoint system so far as to do 5 classes/tiers and if I do I would have to make some tiers backwards-incompatible. This is because of the nature of which your Dragon would benefit. Assuming the 5 tier system, if you take a class 3 for example, you can equip 1 class II + 1 class I, or 3 class I weapons. (In other words if you had an LRM-15, you can equip 3 LRM-5s instead, or an LRM-10 and an LRM-5, or an LRM-10 and an SRM-4, etc.)

So now we return to your Dragon.
As I said it got the crap-end of the stick and unless we start limiting armor per variant, the only thing we can do is inflate the available hardpoint size. Keep in mind that this is simply a rapid concept, I'm still working on the light mechs and after I wrote the following I compared it to other mechs and may change it in some way or another. I'm using this layout anyway to give you an idea of what would happen if you had said larger hardpoints, especially to give you an idea of why there is incentive to run smaller weapons.

DRG-1C

• Current: 1 ballistic, 4 energy\, 1 missile
  
• New: 1 Class III ballistic, 1 Class III energy (shoulder), 1 Class II energy (left arm), 1 Class II missile.

Possible equipment:

• Right Arm. Class III limit.
  
  • 1 AC/20 (either removes lower arm actuator or simply isn't available, but this is the size hardpoint you'd need to get one).
    
  • 1 Gauss
    
  • Up to 2 of any of the following Class II weapons provided they fit into the arm: AC/10, LBX-10, UAC/5
    
  • Up to 3 of the following Class I weapons provided they fit into the arm: AC/2, AC/5.
    
  • Up to [6] of the following Class I weapon: MGs. (This may vary in the future).
    
  • A combination of 1 Class II and 1 class I weapon (except MGs which can be 2).
• Left Shoulder: Class III limit.
  
  • 1 PPC-type weapon
    
  • 2 Large-type laser weapons.
    
  • 3 medium-type laser weapons.
    
  • 4 small-type laser weapons.
    
  • 1 large and 1 medium-type laser weapons.
    
  • 1 large and 2 small-type laser weapons.
    
  • 2 medium and 1 small-type laser weapons.
• Left Arm: Class II-limit.
  
  • 1 Large-type laser (ER, LL, LPL).
    
  • 2 Medium-type lasers. (ER, ML, MPL as applicable).
    
  • 3 small-type lasers. (ER, SL, SPL as applicable).
    
  • 1 medium and 1 small type laser.
• Center Torso: Class II missile hardpoint.
  
  • Any 1 of the following Class II weapons: LRM-10, NARC missile beacon, SRM-6.
    
  • Any 2 of the following Class I: SRM-2, Streak SRM-2, SRM-4, LRM-5.
    
  • Artemis available where applicable but the slots restrict some possibilities.

There. Happy? Your build is still entirely possible.

Keep in mind that the Dragon 1C is one of a few special cases in MWO where it would get a higher than normal 'size' inflation for its weapons, due to its canon weapons being very limited due to high armor weight with no flexibility in engine.

(But as I noted just before this started, this initial idea is likely to change especially since I look at other Dragons and see problems already, for example another Dragon variant is more likely to have an arm-mounted Class III weapon and the 1C might not be in possession of a Class III ballistic hardpoint.)

Given some time, I'll be doing a huge post covering my concept and every suggested hardpoint adjustment. Locust players should be really happy with me.

You're making specific concessions to preserve a build on a mech you don't see as problematic. Why should the AC2 of the Dragon allowed to be a Gauss rifle, but not the AC2 of the Jägermech? Why should the medium laser of the Dragon be allowed to be a PPC, but not the medium laser of the Victor? There is no consistency here. You're simply playing whack-a-mole with mechs that you don't like while ignoring mechs you don't consider a problem. The system we have now solves the same issues while not being anywhere near as arbitrary.

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

What's your point relative to this conversation? That would likely be unchanged. Your Ac20 would be more effective relative to current, and overall you might actually have more fun on the battlefield, because you could use your short range build as a brawler, instead of being PPC meta sniped...

None of those would be exceptional, but they would all be competitive. Everything would be more competitive!

I play all these mechs quite successfully within the current meta. Unlike a lot of folks, I actually spent my time practicing the mechs I like and learning how to play what I wanted in the current metagame rather than coming to the forum to shoot blood out of my lower orifices about how there is only one working mech.

My AC20 Hunchback hasn't changed since they introduced Endo/Ferro/DHS, and it works just as well now as it did back then. I need to keep an eye out for a few more threats, sure, but my Hunchback never got worse than it was.

[ApolloKaras]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I can agree with you here and I'm glad I'm not the only one to see that.

But to counter, I ask that you consider the following:
The Blackjack can be copied across 3 out of 5 variants. What's so unique about that?
The Hunchback can be copied across 3 out of 6 variants. Again, what reason might you have to want two different Hunchbacks if both can run the same build in exactly the same way?
The Shadowhawks... 4 (don't count [c] variants) out of 5 variants can run exactly the same build.

This brings forth a big question: Why use any other variant?
That's what sized hardpoints is hoping to address.

Also consider this:
A Spider can do everything an Urban mech can do but better, being skinnier, faster, etc., etc., etc. Especially since the weapon models on the Spider are so tiny (much like the Firestarter).
Why use an Urban mech?
Because the Urban mech can carry bigger guns.

2H I can run 3 ac2s. The 2D I can be left side dominant as opposed to spread. 2D2 can be loaded with srms. 2k is very different also. Just because I can run the same variant for all of them doesn't mean the hard points are not diverse.

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 08:44 AM.

[FupDup]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

Also consider this:
A Spider can do everything an Urban mech can do but better, being skinnier, faster, etc., etc., etc. Especially since the weapon models on the Spider are so tiny (much like the Firestarter).
Why use an Urban mech?
Because the Urban mech can carry bigger guns.

The Urbie has a special quirk that the Spider doesn't have.

[UnsafePilot]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

The Blackjack can be copied across 3 out of 5 variants. What's so unique about that?
The Hunchback can be copied across 3 out of 6 variants. Again, what reason might you have to want two different Hunchbacks if both can run the same build in exactly the same way?
The Shadowhawks... 4 (don't count [c] variants) out of 5 variants can run exactly the same build.

Chassis based quirks can address this and don't require reworking as much of that game since they're already an existing system.

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

This brings forth a big question: Why use any other variant?
That's what sized hardpoints is hoping to address.

My question is under a sized hardpoint's system why use any variant that can't hold the weapons that I do the best with?

If I'm still using the same weapons what's changed on the battle field other than the variety of mechs you'll see me pilot?

The me in all of this is hypothetical btw, I hadly ever use the weapons that are being complained about here; too much skill needed for my sad aim.