344 replies to this topic

[Terror Teddy]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Aye, hard point are fine, but still does not prevent "unreasonable" mech configs..

Like what? The GaussCat?

Sorry, that is only ART not following FUNCTION and is mostly about PGI not having enought 3D modellers to make every model of a mech completely modular.

Still, most of the gun is inserted inside the torso.

Not to mention that no-one complains when someone puts a PPC into a medium laser slot - Have you seen teh size of the K2 PPC arms compared to the Hunchback medium laser arm?

Yea, I'm a bit annoyed about people going on about how "OMG it cannot fit there"

[Kaspirikay]

Really, i think one of the things going for this game is its open customisations.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Meh, you get used to hardpoint-limited customization, but then again...
What if you have one favorite chassis, and you want to mount your favorite weapons on it, but you cannot, because of those restrictions? Should you really just be penalized for not choosing the 'right' BattleMech in the first place?

I'm really miffed that I can't just drop the missiles on the CN9-AL for more Medium Lasers or something.

Though hardpoint-based variants are probably required by design at this point in order to promote 'Mech XP grinding.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 13 November 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[Relic1701]

If we didn't have hardpoints, this is what the mechs would be called...

• 25t
  
• 35t
  
• 40t
  
• 50t
  
• 60t
  
• 65t
  
• 80t
  
• 100t

And they can add more original names later like 70t, or 90t.

[MWHawke]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

One of the biggest problems with previous Battle tech games was the "universal customization" allowance. Meaing everyone thought just because they salvaged or puchased it, it was going to fit on their mech, even tho common sense said no. Like a PPC on Jenner.........not gonna happen, or at least should not. However if you have the tonnage or willing to sacrifice things, you could make it happen, and this brought on the light - medium mechs with 12-18 small pulse lasers circle straffing ppl (which has been addressed in this game).

However playing the IS WAS supposed to be hard, they were no Omni mechs like the clans, thus the IS had Variants of their mechs and this is what we need to stick to also...the variant models. Or at the least limit the amount of a specific type of weapon can be put on an IS mech.

An Atlas with 4 large pulse lasers would make no sense, as there is already a mech that has that config (Rifleman IIC) and the Atlas role if close and personal with beefy armor, or would you put 3 ER PPC on an Atlas, when the Awesome already has that config?

To be true to the table top game you also have to be true to the varaints and each mechs limitations, as each mech was built to fit a role with certain needs in mind.

The Omi mech (clan mechs and later the IS introduced their versions) Is the only mech capable of taking and swapping various weapson and heatsinks without penalty...........we should keep it like that. My 2 cents...FLAME ON!

Highlighted some of your points that conflict one another. If you are talking post-clan, then IS had omnis. If you are talking bout pre-clan, then the Rifleman IIC would not exist.

[Terror Teddy]

Lorcan Lladd, on 13 November 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

Meh, you get used to hardpoint-limited customization, but then again...
What if you have one favorite chassis, and you want to mount your favorite weapons on it, but you cannot, because of those restrictions? Should you really just be penalized for not choosing the 'right' BattleMech in the first place?

Pfft.

I love the AC/20 and I want to snipe with it at 1000 meters and do full damage. Unfortunately I have to take the Gauss for that job.

Is it your favorite mech due to slot layout or simple Aesthetics?

[Stormwolf]

Relic1701, on 13 November 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

If we didn't have hardpoints, this is what the mechs would be called...

• 25t
  
• 35t
  
• 40t
  
• 50t
  
• 60t
  
• 65t
  
• 80t
  
• 100t

And they can add more original names later like 70t, or 90t.

QFT

Edited by Stormwolf, 13 November 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[geop]

customization is a must.

"If the Devs decide to allow "if it fits and you have the tonnage" rule then I say just remove all mechs from the game and give us basic empty chassis and design your own mech....................."

the chassis-design of the mechs are VERY important, so why would you wipe them and replace with a "standard" chassis?? my most mech config depents on this, it is not very smart to use the same weapons on different mechs. for example:

why would you put a xl engine into an hunchi? even the newest player automaticaly aims for your RT because of the large "HIT ME" design. but if you put an xl into a dragon the most ppl have problems to hit anything else than your CT.

there are many points which influence your complete mech loadout and the chassis is one of them. dont just watch for the hardpoints and heatsinks/tonnage.

[Kaijin]

Hardpoints are good. Sized hardpoints are better if we're going to be doing this whole 'role warfare' thing.

I don't think nearly as many people would have been upset about getting killed by LRMs if the largest salvo that was getting fired downrange was 2 LRM20s from a slow Catapult with limited ammo and heatsinks. These Fatlas LRM boats ruined it for all the smaller mechs which had LRMs as their primary weapon.

Vote in the new Public LRM Poll. Link in my signature.

Edited by Kaijin, 13 November 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Terror Teddy, on 13 November 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

Is it your favorite mech due to slot layout or simple Aesthetics?

You must be joking.

If you've ever owned and piloted any two different 'Mechs in the same weight class, such as the Hunchback and Centurion, you should know how differently they handle due to weapon placement (not just hardpoints... I'm talking about arm/torso, vertical/lateral positioning, which you must take into account in your gunnery) as well as the general profile (which isn't mere aesthetics; it is responsible for limiting what kind of equipment might be efficiently equipped by the 'Mech).

There's a reason why you twist the torso of those two 'Mechs in a very different way during a brawl, for example, or why the Centurion is better off sniping from the side of building whilst the Hunchback will do better on top of a hill.

And if you imagine that the only thing that makes them unique is the hardpoint restriction, I must wonder if you've been playing at all...
'Mechs are not identified or defined by their weapon loadout alone.

Ask any clanner.

Though the discussion is moot, of course, since the developers appear determinate to maintain the multiple variant-based experience skill tree system.

Honestly, if the only thing which granted uniqueness or character to the different BattleMechs were the varying number and type of weapons which they could mount, then you could just have different weight classes with non-customizable weapon selections.

I thought you people wanted to avert this, hm?

The attention and importance which you dispense to the weapons as opposed to the 'Mech are absolutely ridiculous and blown way out of proportion.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 13 November 2012 - 04:48 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Kaijin, on 13 November 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:

Hardpoints are good. Sized hardpoints are better, if we're going to be doing this whole 'role warfare' thing. I don't think nearly as many people would have been upset about getting killed by LRMs if the largest salvo that was getting fired downrange was 2 LRM20s from a slow Catapult with limited ammo and heatsinks. These Fatlas LRM boats ruined it for all the smaller mechs which had LRMs as their primary weapon. Vote in the new Public LRM Poll. Link in my signature.

Yeah, the hardpoint sizes should depend on the size of the stock weapon.

So a Catapult CPLT-C1 would have:
RA: 1 missile HP with 3 crits
LA: 1 missile HP with 3 crits
RT: 1 energy HP with 1 crit
LT: 1 energy HP with 1 crit
CT: 2 energy HP with 1 crit each

[tenderloving]

Skadi, on 09 July 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

yes, lets prevent people from using their minds as weapons and creating these obsurd setups no one else would think about because they took the tame and had the wits to come up with it!, punish the creative! NO FUN!

"no one else would think about" ???

You are delusional, there is nothing creative about cramming 20 small lasers on a mech. There is nothing original about min/maxing.

Relic1701, on 13 November 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

If we didn't have hardpoints, this is what the mechs would be called...

• 25t
  
• 35t
  
• 40t
  
• 50t
  
• 60t
  
• 65t
  
• 80t
  
• 100t

And they can add more original names later like 70t, or 90t.

You're close, the mechs would actually be:

35T
55T
75T
100T

[Relic1701]

Stormwolf, on 13 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Yeah, the hardpoint sizes should depend on the size of the stock weapon.

So a Catapult CPLT-C1 would have:
RA: 1 missile HP with 3 crits
LA: 1 missile HP with 3 crits
RT: 1 energy HP with 1 crit
LT: 1 energy HP with 1 crit
CT: 2 energy HP with 1 crit each

Nice idea, but feel that it may need a bit of leeway to make mechs a bit more flexible, so to adjust your post slightly, I would go with...

• RA - 1 Missile HP with 5 crits
  
• LA - 1 Missile HP with 5 crits
  
• RT - 1 Energy HP with 3 crits
  
• LT - 1 Energy HP with 3 crits
  
• CT - 2 Energy HP with 1 crit each

This would still allow you to customise, but allow a greater variety of weapons to be mounted, i.e. You could fit LRM20's in the arms, or PPC's or LL's in the side torsos.

P.S. And we all know what would happen to the Gauss Cat, so don't let it devolve into that argument again

Edited by Relic1701, 13 November 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[CodeNameValtus]

Relic1701, on 13 November 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

If we didn't have hardpoints, this is what the mechs would be called...

• 25t
  
• 35t
  
• 40t
  
• 50t
  
• 60t
  
• 65t
  
• 80t
  
• 100t

And they can add more original names later like 70t, or 90t.

Technically, they could add 70t reverse leg walker, 70t quad walker, 70t runner with no arms, 70t runner with arms....horray for variety!

[Sayyid]

I have been running a stock HBK-4G, averaging 2.25k/d with it, cant say I want to modify it, I just run it as it is intended. An AMBUSH mech, a linebacker, not a brawler or an assault mech.

[Kaijin]

Stormwolf, on 13 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Yeah, the hardpoint sizes should depend on the size of the stock weapon.

So a Catapult CPLT-C1 would have:
RA: 1 missile HP with 3 crits
LA: 1 missile HP with 3 crits
RT: 1 energy HP with 1 crit
LT: 1 energy HP with 1 crit
CT: 2 energy HP with 1 crit each

The C4 however could mount a pair of LRM20s

[Kaijin]

Relic1701, on 13 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Nice idea, but feel that it may need a bit of leeway to make mechs a bit more flexible, so to adjust your post slightly, I would go with...

• RA - 1 Missile HP with 5 crits
  
• LA - 1 Missile HP with 5 crits
  
• RT - 1 Energy HP with 3 crits
  
• LT - 1 Energy HP with 3 crits
  
• CT - 2 Energy HP with 1 crit each

This would still allow you to customise, but allow a greater variety of weapons to be mounted, i.e. You could fit LRM20's in the arms, or PPC's or LL's in the side torsos.


P.S. And we all know what would happen to the Gauss Cat, so don't let it devolve into that argument again

Your system allows Fatlas LRM boats to exist. They don't, anywhere but TT and in the present state of MWO. The boating abuse of the hardpoint system PGI has put in place is responsible for most of the weapon balance headaches we've got with this game.

[Psykosis]

Quote

boating abuse of the hardpoint system PGI has put in place is responsible for most of the weapon balance headaches we've got with this game.

Really? Seriously? Sorry, no. Compared to previous titles, MW:O's hardpoint system *prevents* boating unless specifically intended. Arguments about unintended loadouts (replacing MG's with gauss for example), perhaps...

The OP is proposing that there be *NO* customization outside of picking prepackaged variants. While I appreciate the point that it would possibly promote a wider variety of chassis combinations dropped, in reality there will always be a specific variant that proves to be better, and that variant will always be the one used.

Customization in the mechlab encourages another metagame of min/maxing. This isn't a bad thing. It will always exist in competative gameplay. Hyperspecialized builds can be extremely effective - but only in that narrow window of effectiveness. It's a tradeoff.

Min/maxing isn't even hyperspecialization - it's minimizing your weakness, maximizing your effectiveness. Can't hit crap with ballistics because of ping/lag/fast moving targets/low fps/not skilled/experienced enough? Minimize that weakness by de-emphasizing ballistics and emphasizing something you're effective with. Take that away and people will feel, well.....less effective and locked into a playstyle that doesn't necessarily suit them or their situation.

Sounds like those of you in this thread that desire "tightening" the loadout restrictions would appreciate trial only type drops. You'll get your canon specific loadouts, dropped into a field of identical builds where your skills and familiarity alone will determine wins.

I can't see that type of game becomming a hugely popular e-sport however.

[MWHawke]

Discussion is moot coz if you read the novels, you would realize that people can cram big guns into small hardpoints, eg. Centurion comes with an AC 10 in the right arm right? Yen Lo Wang had an AC 20 in it. Customization is a big part of BT Universe and trying to limit it would not follow the story line much.

[Kaijin]

MWHawke, on 13 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Discussion is moot coz if you read the novels, you would realize that people can cram big guns into small hardpoints, eg. Centurion comes with an AC 10 in the right arm right? Yen Lo Wang had an AC 20 in it. Customization is a big part of BT Universe and trying to limit it would not follow the story line much.

The CN9-AH variant comes with an AC/20. We used to have that variant until PGI removed it so they could sell us Yen Lo Wang. Your example fails.