78 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Disclaimer: I know this is only one piece of the greater puzzle. This topic only deals with sized hardpoints.

Sized hardpoints would assist in balancing the mechs against one another, make certain variants across all weight classes unique and more viable, and enforce diversity on the battlefield.

The only argument against (other than developer overhead) that I will acknowledge is the risk of over complication of the mechlab and UI. For this, I will keep my proposal as simple as possible. I have been assured by certain “meta” players that they will simply adapt.

Two (yes, only two) categories are needed for this: Large and Small. So each hardpoint type will be split into one of two different sizes. The large hardpoints will also be able to equip the weapons found in the small category, but obviously small hardpoints cannot equip large weapons.

· Small Ballistic: MG, AC2, AC5
· Large Ballistic: AC10, AC20, GR

· Small Energy: TAG, SL, ML
· Large Energy: LL, PPC

· Small Missile: NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10
· Large Missile: SRM6, LRM15, LRM20

Note: Weapon upgrades such as ER, pulse, Artemis, and ultra, stay with their host weapon.

[Khobai]

sized hardpoints arnt necessary

firing multiple large weapons is already restricted heavily by ghost heat

the majority of balance problems come from boating small weapons like CERMLs in conjunction with Gauss

[CDLord HHGD]

Khobai, on 05 October 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

sized hardpoints arnt necessary

firing multiple large weapons is already restricted heavily by ghost heat

the majority of balance problems come from boating small weapons like CERMLs in conjunction with Gauss

I see that a lot on TBRs, but this would remove the TBR gauss and I would content that GH could be removed or at least heavily nerfed if they used sized hardpoints.

[Khobai]

Quote

I see that a lot on TBRs, but this would remove the TBR gauss and I would content that GH could be removed or at least heavily nerfed if they used sized hardpoints.

Then why would anyone use a timberwolf? The ebon jaguar would just become the new hotness because it could gauss/laser while the timberwolf couldnt.

messing with hardpoints like that just makes mechs obsolete because they cant carry meta loadouts anymore.

i really dont see any benefit to hardpoint sizes. it just restricts loadouts and doesnt even solve the problem of laser vomit or anything.

Edited by Khobai, 05 October 2015 - 11:03 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Khobai, on 05 October 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

Then why would anyone use a timberwolf? The ebon jaguar would just become the new hotness because it could gauss/laser while the timberwolf couldnt.

messing with hardpoints like that just makes mechs obsolete because they cant carry meta loadouts anymore.

Oh no! It' can't meta so it's crap!

This is the type of thinking that will kill this game.

Maybe my next thread should be: "Remove the Mechlab". I know I would be just fine with it and I am not alone.

[Khobai]

Quote

Oh no! It' can't meta so it's crap!

This is the type of thinking that will kill this game.

Its a legitimate point actually.

The timberwolf would literally do nothing better than the ebon jaguar at that point.

the ebon jaguar is just a fast, has a much smaller profile, higher mounted weapons in relation to the cockpit, and if you took away the timberwolfs gauss the ebon would have more firepower too.


the goal should be to make all mechs equal. not nerf some mechs into being obsolete by giving them dumpy hardpoints and the inability to use the weapons they need to use to compete.

Quote

Maybe my next thread should be: "Remove the Mechlab". I know I would be just fine with it and I am not alone.

I fully support a stock mech only gamemode. But why take the mechlab out? Just give people the option to play in a stock mode only queue if they want to.

theres no reason it has to be "my way or no way at all". the game can offer something for everyone.

Edited by Khobai, 05 October 2015 - 11:10 AM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Even I don`t want mechlab to go. That is stupid, but the game is actually just screaming for additional Stock Mode.

[Omi_]

I am totally for this idea. EBJ vs TBR balance can be worked out with quirks or giving the EBJ fewer large hardpoints, or possibly something else. With sized hardpoints:

- PGI's art team ought to have an easier time piecing together mechs knowing that LRM-15 and -20 don't need to fit on some chassis, for example.

- Large hardpoints will make larger weapons more exclusive to certain chassis that can mount them. In a world where new mechs are being added all the time, some room to vurther differentiate mech chassis is becoming necessary.

- Ghost heat on large weapons could be removed as players will be limited to boating only as many weapons as they have appropriate hardpoints to house them.

[SkyHammyr]

I like the idea (as it's been mulled over for a while now), so I voted yes.
But, this would have to be something tested hard on PTS to get the kinks out of it.
I could see it potentially hurting more mechs than helping.

Edited by SkyHammr, 05 October 2015 - 02:22 PM.

[Tesunie]

Played previous MW titles that had sized hard points. Did not like it then, still don't like it now. I don't think it would be good for the game, although I can see why some people advocate for it's implementation as a balance mechanic.

Just because I disagree with the concept, doesn't mean I don't understand it's implicated implications (funny phrase to say). I just don't like the concept and I don't think it would work.

[Ialdabaoth]

Tesunie, on 05 October 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Played previous MW titles that had sized hard points. Did not like it then, still don't like it now. I don't think it would be good for the game, although I can see why some people advocate for it's implementation as a balance mechanic.

Just because I disagree with the concept, doesn't mean I don't understand it's implicated implications (funny phrase to say). I just don't like the concept and I don't think it would work.

What previous MW title had sized hard points?

[Tesunie]

Ialdabaoth, on 05 October 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

What previous MW title had sized hard points?

MW 3. MW 4.

Hard points where there, and they had "slots". Each weapon would take so many "slots" of a given hard point type. An example would be the PPC took 3 energy hard points.

Was not a bad system, but I didn't like it and it did not exactly feel right using it. Was actually not all that great because some mechs you couldn't even place in other lore variants of it. (Such as the Kit Fox in that game. You could not make the Kit Fox A(?), as it could not fit a Gauss Rifle onto it, as it's hard points where too small for it.)

The system being proposed here is very similar, and I don't think it would do much in favor of this game. I didn't like it in MW3 and MW4, I don't think I'd like it if it was in MW:O as well. (Though it wouldn't exactly stop me from playing either, as I did still enjoy MW3-4.)

[Ialdabaoth]

I don't remember this in MW3, but I do remember something like it in MW4. I'll take your word for it, though.

Also, as an aside: Missiles don't really need hard point sizes, as long as they stick with the current tube limits.

[Tesunie]

Ialdabaoth, on 05 October 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

I don't remember this in MW3, but I do remember something like it in MW4. I'll take your word for it, though.

Also, as an aside: Missiles don't really need hard point sizes, as long as they stick with the current tube limits.

I know for a fact MW4 did. I am not completely certain about MW3 I'll admit. I believe it did, but I don't want to say I'm certain about it either.

Either way, MW4 did, and it was "alright" but not very good either. It's a system I'd rather just not see happen in BT again...

[TheArisen]

Perhaps a mid sized hard point? Ac10s, lbx10, ultra 10, etc.

Sized hardpoints also offers interesting balance and variant differences. One variant could have fewer large slots and another could have a bunch of small slots.

[Greyhart]

from a logical stand point I see no reason why there shouldn't be hard points sized on the number of crit slots like in MW4.

Crit slots are suppose to be the bulkiness of the weapon. So a mech might have a small laser mount but you couldn't fit a PPC in it.

Of course never going to happen.

If they'd done it from the start it would be completely accepted and you wouldn't get ridiculous builds

[Karl Streiger]

I want sized hard points.
maybe not because of balance but because of the look. A PPC in a large slot is big.... it don't have to fit into a Spiders arm.
Or even better consider the Warhammer with 2 Gauss or AC 20 Nipples - this would be absolutely ugly, or Quad UAC 5.... i wish we could throw those guys in the deepest pit of BT Hell and let them rot there.

Because i mentioned it - machine guns and flamer should considered as the same HP - anti infantry (maybe including SRM 2s, small laser and small pulse laser too)
that would help to make SRM racks bigger or you don't need to make AC 2 and AC 5 so small.

An please throw the guy that invented the 10P Panther in the same hell, mentioned above

BTW: a simple poll - YES / NO would be enough - don't split your votes when a simple majority is enough.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 06 October 2015 - 05:32 AM.

[Ialdabaoth]

Greyhart, on 06 October 2015 - 04:32 AM, said:

from a logical stand point I see no reason why there shouldn't be hard points sized on the number of crit slots like in MW4.

Crit slots are suppose to be the bulkiness of the weapon. So a mech might have a small laser mount but you couldn't fit a PPC in it.

Of course never going to happen.

If they'd done it from the start it would be completely accepted and you wouldn't get ridiculous builds

This is exactly the problem - people have a strong status quo bias, that makes rational analysis of options impossible.

[IraqiWalker]

Sorry Cdlord, I love most of your posts, but this is one thing I am adamantly against. Give me one good reason why I can't have the AC 20 on a mech that has the tonnage, and slots for it? What arbitrary reason is there to say that this mech can't carry that weapon?

[Jaeger Gonzo]

IraqiWalker, on 06 October 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Sorry Cdlord, I love most of your posts, but this is one thing I am adamantly against. Give me one good reason why I can't have the AC 20 on a mech that has the tonnage, and slots for it? What arbitrary reason is there to say that this mech can't carry that weapon?

The reason is Battletech flavor. Some people including me, don`t want to see K2 on gauss in they freaking MG slots.
But Sized HP are lost tech by now, its just too late for it. Far more realistic is HP located quirks, that would have similar end effect.