11 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

There are Mechs that are intended to be ran with the focus on a singular large weapons system with multiple smaller weapons backing it up.

So... if you were to "optimize" this loadout by changing to Endosteel or double heatsinks, you would find yourself with extra tonnage available. If you were retaining your large weapon system, then it would make sense to add a few more light-weight backup weapons to increase your total firepower, and add some ammo for your Primary.

Enter the Hardpoints.

If your Mech is "designed" for a large Ballistic, then you may find yourself smitten with a plurality of hardpoints assigned to that singular weapon.. and no more left-over slots for back-up lasers. However, if your Mech was intended to run a minor Ballistic, you'll find yourself swaddled in plentiful back-up weapon slots, and the ability to upgrade your minor Ballistic into a Major Ballistic.

In effect, Mechs that are designed to run a small Ballistic and many other weapons are the best Mechs for running a singular Major Ballistic with many backups. On the contrary, the Mechs that are "designed" to run a Major Ballistic will find themselves equipped with fewer backup weapons than their brethren who are running the same Major Ballistic.



This leads to a conundrum: - How to you emphasize a Mech's design intent to reflect a Major Weapon backed-up by other smaller weapons? Clearly, the current design makes the Default Major Weapon Carrier an inferior choice to carry Major weapons compared to Mechs designed to run Minor weapons. Mechs that are designed to run Minor weapons are the best choice to run Major Weapons with the current hardpoint implementation.

Many people have suggested "Hardpoint Sizing" as a way of emphasizing a Mech's design intent.. rather by force. I think this system would be too harsh, and reduce the overall variety of Mech Variants that are considered highly combat-proficient.

I believe the way we should be emphasizing a Mech's design intent is through assigning Quirks to the Hardpoints, themselves.

It's one thing to give a Mech 3 Ballistic Slots to say "Hey, It's A Ballistic Mech!," but it's another thing altogether to say "Hey, this Mech has better ballistic performance in this Compartment located right here-> "


The Hunchback-4G SHOULD NOT be getting an AC/20 Quirk, because that just screams:

"We gave it 3 ballistic slots, and you're supposed to use just one. The others are a waste, trust us."

If the Inner Sphere Quirk system were applied to the compartment-level, and applied to entire weapons classes instead of specific weapons, then it would achieve the ultimate goal of the Quirk System: to make Mechs Viable due to their inherent strengths in their weapon-focused bodyparts. The inherent strength of the Hunchback-4G is to run ballistics, and up to 3 of them without wasting its potential. Assigning a Quirk to just 1/3 slots just seems like you're telling me to do 2 different things at once - use 2+ Ballistics and use 1 Ballistic.

_______________________

TL; DR; ADD
_______________________

If the weapons Quirk System were based strictly on the compartment-level, and applied to weapon classes instead of specific weapons, then it would achieve all of its intended goals without wasting hardpoint resources.

Thank you for your time :-)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 20 October 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[KhanCipher]

till my poor SHD-2H(P) has 3 ballisitic hardpoints from it's 1 AC5...

imo i think hardpoints are just done with no rhyme or reason.

Edited by KhanCipher, 20 October 2014 - 08:58 PM.

[Mercules]

Prosperity Park, on 20 October 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

If the weapons Quirk System were based strictly on the compartment-level, and applied to weapon classes instead of specific weapons, then it would achieve all of its intended goals without wasting hardpoint resources.

Thank you for your time :-)

Hey... look a second thread saying the same thing as the other one to no good point.

HBK-4G stock carries an AC/20. Thus the quirks it gets help enforce it's stock role and make it solid with an AC/20. If you don't like that, don't play an HBK-4G. Alternately you could play an HBK-4G with a Gauss and 2 MGs in it and realize that you have some wasted potential, but you still like having a Gauss rifle and live with it.

Edited by Mercules, 20 October 2014 - 09:02 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mercules, on 20 October 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

Hey... look a second thread saying the same thing as the other one to no good point.

HBK-4G stock carries an AC/20. Thus the quirks it gets help enforce it's stock role and make it solid with an AC/20. If you don't like that, don't play an HBK-4G. Alternately you could play an HBK-4G with a Gauss and 2 MGs in it and realize that you have some wasted potential, but you still like having a Gauss rifle and live with it.

-4H does an AC/20 or a Gauss better.

There's no reason to say a 4G is designed to run Gauss or AC/20 if it does so poorly compared to other Mechs.

[Kiiyor]

Prosperity Park, on 20 October 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

-4H does an AC/20 or a Gauss better.

There's no reason to say a 4G is designed to run Gauss or AC/20 if it does so poorly compared to other Mechs.

It will still run Gauss 12.5% better, or whatever it is with the new halving quirk bonus. That's a lot. You can double that with modules.

Edit: not to say I don't like your idea, as I do.

Edited by Kiiyor, 20 October 2014 - 09:16 PM.

[Deathlike]

I don't necessarily have a problem with this idea, and it'll probably be needed as more mechs are added.

More generalized quirks should be less beneficial when applied to a greater set of weapons/circumstances. More specific quirks should be more beneficial, to influence a particular result/design.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Prosperity Park, on 20 October 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

-4H does an AC/20 or a Gauss better.

There's no reason to say a 4G is designed to run Gauss or AC/20 if it does so poorly compared to other Mechs.

HBK-4G comes stock with an AC20.
HBK-4H comes stock with an AC10.

Source.

This is why the -4G gets AC20 quirks and the -4H gets AC10 ones.

Hope this helped.

[Mercules]

Prosperity Park, on 20 October 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

-4H does an AC/20 or a Gauss better.

There's no reason to say a 4G is designed to run Gauss or AC/20 if it does so poorly compared to other Mechs.

Except that an HBK-4G according to Battletech and Mechwarrior lore says it runs an AC/20. When you buy one stock it comes with.... an AC/20.

So saying there is "no reason" isn't true. It's just not a reason you personally like. When I log into Mechwarrior I look forward to playing a Mechwarrior game set in the Battletech universe, not "Prosperity Park's Personal Preference Generic Mecha Online".

[Thejuggla]

One that really bugs me is the banshee turning its ac5 into 4 hard points.

If sized hard points - Mech that normally has 1 ballistics running an Ac20 I replace that one sized hardpoint with say 4 MGs = less variety? I don't get the hard on every one has for hatting sized hard points all it would do is make mechs keep to their role(gauss catapults replacing mgs lol) and would add just as much variety as it would take away.

[Karl Streiger]

Prosperity Park, on 20 October 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

If the Inner Sphere Quirk system were applied to the compartment-level, and applied to entire weapons classes instead of specific weapons, then it would achieve the ultimate goal of the Quirk System: to make Mechs Viable due to their inherent strengths in their weapon-focused bodyparts. The inherent strength of the Hunchback-4G is to run ballistics, and up to 3 of them without wasting its potential. Assigning a Quirk to just 1/3 slots just seems like you're telling me to do 2 different things at once - use 2+ Ballistics and use 1 Ballistic.

Nice topic.
BTW - the Hunch could run 2AC2s and a AC20 and have all three slots - weight is a problem - but that is not the problem of the system - but of the 3 ballistic hardpoints.

i think a MechLab is always a thin line between "freedom" and "min maxers without style"
Currently i think the Hunchback with the changed quirks is much more satisfactory - you get half the bonus for all the 3 weapon systems but still get a real boost when using the big 20.
Currently i can't imagine a better system to allow "freedom" and boost players with style.

Although on the other hand a general ballistic quirk could simple become to much.... just an old example the Ultra 5 or the AC 2 - those weapons on their own were hardly in a place i call OP. They became OP when they were build in clusters of >=3 - so

lets predict the AC 2 works as we know it (2100m range, 0.5sec cooldown) - lets predict also this works perfectly for most builds - maybe because we have convergence time back - but with a 25% boost on everything this gun could become a absolute menace on a Hunchback with 25% boost. (or in double mount on the Thunderbolt 5S) - it could become so much - that you are forced to "nerf" the gun - or the quirk of the Mech - making it obsolete for A 20 users.

With a single perk on single weapon type you have better control over the output. You can predict if the AC 20 is to powerful - or are the quirks to powerful

[Celthora]

As a sized hardpoint system supporter, i say there is no need to feel bad about these wasted hardpoints. If you are able to play all heavy, medium, light ACs in 1 mech, so lets delete all other mediums.

While there are lots of mechs around, i don't understand why people wanna try to apply all builds on one mech? If you want to fill several ballistic points on a medium, that they would be AC2s or 5s, its Blackjack's area of expertise. So you must ask for some light AC quirks for BJ, instead of forcing 1 mech for multiple roles.

Edited by Celthora, 21 October 2014 - 04:10 AM.

[Sybreed]

perhaps the issue is that anyone can fit Endo and DHS on any mech...