48 replies to this topic

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Allowing you to select which hardpoint a weapon goes into will breath some fresh air into more than a few mechs. Yes PGI should select where hardpoints are on a mech, but, let us pick which one our weapon goes into. Good case in point is the Phoenix Hawk.

What it was supposed to be:


What we got:

As you can see instead of using the laser mount in the forearm which always exists even if no laser goes in there (and it only does if you have 3E in the right arm) you get this big fuggly gun instead which is fine on the builds that use 3E, but, for 2E it is silly since you should use the built in hardpoint before building a completely different gun to support two energy weapons in it.

There are other mechs like the Black Knight that would be aided in this, and probably a lot more that I don't know of off the top of my head, but, it would be very helpful.

[lazytopaz]

Banshee is the prime example of dire need for being able to choose where weapon is suppose to go. That's why many builds include small lasers (which might as well be machine guns w/o any ammo) to take those lower/belt level harpoints to put all those juicy LPL's on top of your shoulders.

[Nisk]

This would be a great change. No more odd weapon juggling to get my Ebon Jags set up with the right weapons in the high mounted slots or wasted tonnage on my PPFLD Kodiak.

[Huron Fal]

Seelenlos, on 27 August 2015 - 02:20 AM, said:

I am against It.

It's the same with my IMs Torso, but if the mech design only allows that ....

NOT that i do NOT like it myself

, but if the schema for that mechs only allows a 1 slot Weapon on that point, then it would make a meta mech more meta.

OK, you say the slot system is not implemented, but then when we are at that point (MAYBE) then it would be changed back again, and you are again are not satisfied.

I dont think anyone is advocating being able to put say, an AC 20 in a 1 slot ballistic CT hardpoint, but rather, given 3 hardpoints on the same component, being able to select which of the three it goes into

[AnHell86]

I ran into this problem with my Battlemaster-3M; I wanted to place the ERPPCs on the topmost hardpoints but can only do so if I put 2 "padding" energy weapons in each torso and THEN put the ERPPCs.

:/

[B L O O D W I T C H]

One of the few who's against this suggestion.

On one hand, i am also annoyed by the current weapon-placement rules but i simply have to say that there is already way to much min/max in the game, so i am against it.

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 15 January 2017 - 11:25 PM.

[Insanity09]

Honestly, this would make simple sense. Of course we should be able to put weapons on a specific hardpoint.

Until and unless they add sized hardpoints, there is no excuse for it not functioning this way.

[MechTech Dragoon]

Personally....i think they should remove variants all together (albeit still sell them in the store) and just give the ability to equip weapons into a hardpoint in this same style. However, each individual harpoint being limited by max number of slots, so for example...you wouldnt be able to stick a 3 slot ballistic into a locust, all of its ballistic hardpoints are single slot.

Continuing with the locust as an example
In any locust the arms could mount either
2 eng
2 ballistic
or 2 missile
Ct mounting either...2 eng
or 2 ballistic

All slots being single

So, you could have a locust with....2 mg ct, 2 sml las right arm, 2 srm2 left arm.



This however, would facilitate a change to hero mechs, and omnimechs.

Hero mechs would have to get a more visual focus, having a slightly different model, instead of different hardpoints, this would get rid of a bit of that bad "pay to win" taste revolving around heroes.

Omnimechs would receive an overhaul due to this, coming into a more lore accurate perspective. Each omnimech would come with up to 4 "omniset" slots, where players can set up pre determined loadouts for an omnimech, weapons and equipment for these "omnisets" would be locked to them, unable to be taken out aside from selling the omniset completely.
Upon dropping into a match in an omnimech, a UI would appear, giving the player a choice between one of their omnisets for the specific match.

This would give omnimechs their logistical advantage that they should have, omnimechs would retain their customization nerfs however, most still having locked equipment.
This would facilitate a series of packs for inner sphere, bringing in omni's for them as well.


This would also rework quirks, enabling quirks to be bound to A. a chassis
and B, all of its possible hardpoint setups individually.

So instead of a K2 having mg rate of fire, ect.
The catapult, would have the option of...2eng ct(1slot each) 1 eng rt(2slot) 1 ballistic rt.(3slot) 1 eng lt(2slot) 1 ballistic lt (3slot)
R-arm-1 missile(7 slots), 3 missile(2slots each), 1 energy(5slot) L-arm-1 missile(7slots), 3 missile(2slots each), 1 energy(5slots)

So, any of these hardpoints variations could be given quirks individual, buffed and nerfed as deemed fit by balance designers.
If for example, lrm-20+artemis is doing too well in the single missile hardpoints, nerf lrm cooldown for that hardpoint, and that hardpoint only.

This would also save modellers and animators time modelling weapons for mechs that really wont use them in said slot...
Like autocannons on a locust...or a spider.

Adding massive customization to us, and making things easier for developers, modellers, and balancers in the long run. and giving a bit more immersion, cause lets face it, in all reality...you should be able to slap a gauss rifle on either side of that stalker and go nuts.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

It's not about dev time though, it's a balance point. There is no reason outside of some SSRM mumbo-jumbo to use low mounts at all. Should free choice of hardpoints happen, quite some mechs will have to lose the quirks to be brought in line, which will just lead to another round of complaints "This mech now sucks PGI plz fix".
As for Ebon Jaguar, while I do enjoy mine, I perfectly understand how it's very, VERY bad idea to buff him in any way. If anything, there are more things requiring attention, like buffing Cicada, Non-oxide jenners, kintaro variants that's not KTO-18, reboxing Trebuchet, extensive rescaling of the mechs, buffing TDK, Hell, we still struggling to find good balance point with lasers.

[Insanity09]

I'm not sure I understand your counter argument, SDCR.

The point being put forth is that for mechs that have multiple hardpoints, torso, some high and some low, it would make sense for you to be able to decide which hardpoints to use. Engineers, mech mechanics, whatever you want to call them would certainly make use of the best hardpoints for the highest value weapons. The hardpoints are already part of the mechs, the suggestion is that you be able to use the good ones preferentially when you limit the number of weapons you take. The 'bad' or 'low' hardpoints would still be used by folks putting a full set of weapons in.

Right now, you end up wasting, more or less, a ton or two (depending on slot type and number) to drop a couple less valuable weapons into the low slots. It isn't a chassis re-defining moment for that not being required.. Why would quirks need to be changed if that weren't necessary?

To your other point, various and sundry chassis needing to be re-worked and certain weapons needing to be rebalanced, with or without hardpoint selection, well, yes, that's been needed for a long time.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

My point is, while some things may make no sense, they are considerable balance points. That "ton or two" you sacrifice to get your desired weapon in high mounts also strip off the extra slots and this, while being annoying, disables your ability to carry that extra heat sink, bigger TC, certain extra large guns, gets you struggling with beagle etc. It's like ISXL engine blocking your ability to mount AC20, Heavy Gauss and so on — somewhat obscure, but balance, not mechanics decision.

[BTGbullseye]

Strength Damage Cliff Racer, on 27 December 2017 - 03:41 AM, said:

My point is, while some things may make no sense, they are considerable balance points. That "ton or two" you sacrifice to get your desired weapon in high mounts also strip off the extra slots and this, while being annoying, disables your ability to carry that extra heat sink, bigger TC, certain extra large guns, gets you struggling with beagle etc. It's like ISXL engine blocking your ability to mount AC20, Heavy Gauss and so on — somewhat obscure, but balance, not mechanics decision.

So just make putting it in the specific slot an extra 0.25t, and require an extra slot used... Why force an extra weapon to be purchased and equipped?

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

Because some players build mechs around this "quirk" and shouldn't be punished with extra costs? Not everybody puts dump weapons instead of, for example, actual back-ups.

[BTGbullseye]

Strength Damage Cliff Racer, on 27 December 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

Because some players build mechs around this "quirk" and shouldn't be punished with extra costs? Not everybody puts dump weapons instead of, for example, actual back-ups.

As I said, why force them to buy a weapon they are never going to use? Maybe they don't want it for heat restrictions, maybe for something else. There should be options, not restrictions.

[Insanity09]

So... you're saying that a tonnage penalty for mechs that already have (partly) poor geometry is part of the intended design? If so, that constitutes intentional bias and sabotage on the part of the development team. That they are intentionally putting in mechs that are effectively under tonnage and space (because of the wasted or semi-wasted tonnage/slots).

Since there is no real motive for that, I doubt it is actually the case.

I'm far more ready to believe that it is simply a programmatic issue that needs correcting. In that situation, the mechs need not be changed (re-quirked).

[Panzerkuh]

100000% would love to see this, I bought the Hangover recently only to find out I can only put 4 missiles in the hand if I use all 5 hard points so using a 4 missile load results in a lone launcher on the shoulder

[0Jiggs0]

If players already have a valid work-around to mount weapons in the space they want, there is no reason not to make mount location a feature. This would be especially convenient for mechs with multiple lasers in the same component, since they all look the same. No more going to the testing grounds to make sure the ERs are on top. I'm all for it.

[Appuagab]

They should've done this years ago. Even though geometry power creep is already a problem, the current dumb hardpoints placement order only makes it worse.

[Panzerkuh]

Has there been a statement from PGI on this being a possibility anywhere? Like a vlog/blog I didn't see

[Generic Internetter]

Just from a logical point of view... Would you spend millions of credits building a giant war machine that didn't allow you to select where you mount the weapons?!

PGI, you really dropped the ball on this one. Pretty lame oversight on your part... Fix it ASAP please.