53 replies to this topic

[Malleus011]

The more I ponder one of the suggestions form this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...stions-for-pgi/ the more I like it.

That's the Signature Hardpoint idea. This has the potential to give some of the benefits of the sized hard point system without quite as many restrictions. The idea is to encourage builds that utilize the 'signature weapons' of various chassis, without preventing the chassis from being heavily customized by those who prefer it.

Say you have a 'mech known for carrying an AC/20 as the main weapon system. It has multiple ballistic hard points in various locations, and general ballistics quirks as well as specific AC/20 quirks. Say 10% ballistic cooldown and 10% AC/20 cooldown, just for example.

The general ballistics quirks would apply anywhere on the 'mech, but what if the specific AC/20 quirk only applied to the right arm (where the stock model mounts the AC/20)?

[adamts01]

That would be very cool, if they could figure out the programming. They still haven't taken the artemis bonus away from streak lock on..... I don't have much hope.

[SkaerKrow]

I would prefer to encourage variety over pigeon-holing builds even further with slot-specific quirks. If you want to run an iconic weapon on a chassis, nothing is currently stopping you.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I think the idea is interesting. I wouldn't be against more specifically assigning quirks to a specific hardpoint.

The only real issue would be the U.I. programming to make it easier to understand what hardpoint recieves what bonuses (and do it intuitively). That level of work might not be in the cards for now...or ever.

[Khobai]

Quote

I would prefer to encourage variety over pigeon-holing builds

builds need to be pigeon holed in order to properly differentiate mechs

[MeiSooHaityu]

Khobai, on 12 January 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

builds need to be pigeon holed in order to properly differentiate mechs

Not to mention that it still wouldn't stop you from running what you want to anyway. it would just allow the player to benefit a bit for running a machine how it was designed. Really not much different than what we have now, just maybe not QUITE as Min/Max friendly.

[Raubwurst]

Some days ago Russ Bullock made a statement about it. Don't remember exactly, but I think he just said, that it cannot be done (at the moment)...

(He said it on twitter, in one of my posts from the last few days in the twitterthread should be his exact statement if interested)

[Elizander]

The best way to do this is to put this special bonus on top of existing quirks. No feathers ruffled from existing builds.

[Felbombling]

SkaerKrow, on 12 January 2016 - 07:02 AM, said:

I would prefer to encourage variety over pigeon-holing builds even further with slot-specific quirks. If you want to run an iconic weapon on a chassis, nothing is currently stopping you.

Right, but my thought with the Signature Weapon slot was to encourage classic weapon placement, not force it. It also has the benefit of preventing a weapon quirk meant for a limited number of weapons turn a non-boat Mech into a boat Mech. OP gave a great example.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Khobai, on 12 January 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

builds need to be pigeon holed in order to properly differentiate mechs

Actually, whether there is a "need" at all is a matter of opinion.

That being said, things that wpuld encourage some variety would be nice, but that should come through more open ended options, not necessarily pigeon holing.

Right now we have two signifcant weapons being largely ignored by much of the playerbase (ppc/erppc and gauss), two near useless support weapons (mg, flamer), and marginalized next tier weapons (ac 10, ac 2).

So of course,people gravitate to what works and what simplifies things for them, which means you see a lot of triple LPL builds out there, regardless of chassis. While parity and balance are largely impossible in this kind of game imo, true USEFULLNESS is not and should be the goal. See recent SRM changes for an example imo.

[Metus regem]

King Alen, on 12 January 2016 - 08:09 AM, said:

No, I like doing what I like with Mechs

Nothing stops you from doing that with this suggestion, rather it rewards those of us that try to run lore correct or stock builds, rather than being punished for not running the meta. And by punished, I mean we have to work twice as hard as someone who does.

[Greyhart]

it's a interesting idea and would again help towards balance.

So you could have a mech with say 6 ballistic slots but only 2 get the quirk for say Ultra AC 5 and the others could be something else.

This would likely have to go with the ability to pick the weapon placement.

I feel this falls into the category of nice idea, just too much work and what's there works ok now.

[Alistair Winter]

Yes, I would love this! It would be a great way to discourage silly builds, like the Thunderbolts with torso-mounted PPCs, Hellbringers with all weapons in the torso, Timber Wolves with 3xCERLL or 3xCLPL in their shoulder mount, etc.

[Radbane]

But what would define a signature hardpoint? The 'stock' layout?

[TheArisen]

I'd be willing to try it. I can see it being a good change. It'd certainly make it easier for Pgi to buff/nerf mechs.

[Wolfways]

I played stock weapon loadouts on my mechs for 3 years so I know that pgi have done their best to remove the ability to play stock mechs (even though they sell stock mechs).
With IS mechs you can reduce engine size and add FF to get some weight to add heat sinks, armour, and ammo. With clan mechs it's pretty much impossible unless you like overheating non-stop and quickly running out of ammo. The only way to really customize clan mechs is to remove weapons and/or fit smaller ones.

While I'd love to see more "stock" builds I just think that pgi's crappy heat system and limited ammo/ton means they will just be hugely underpowered, unless you are removing other weapons to have 1 or 2 stock weapons.

[Tyler Valentine]

It is a great idea.

Bishop has been actively pushing it on Twitter, I think he is, rightfully, worried that everyone is going to strip the weapons and armor off their 'Hammers and put the PPCs in the torsos. Definitely ruins the lore immersion the way we have it set up now.

[Tyler Valentine]

Raubwurst, on 12 January 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

Some days ago Russ Bullock made a statement about it. Don't remember exactly, but I think he just said, that it cannot be done (at the moment)...

(He said it on twitter, in one of my posts from the last few days in the twitterthread should be his exact statement if interested)

Yeah, it was a programming thing but did not sound insurmountable.

Love your Twitter feed thread BTW! read it every day, thanks for doing that.

[Khobai]

Tyler Valentine, on 12 January 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

It is a great idea.

Bishop has been actively pushing it on Twitter, I think he is, rightfully, worried that everyone is going to strip the weapons and armor off their 'Hammers and put the PPCs in the torsos. Definitely ruins the lore immersion the way we have it set up now.

Signature hardpoints are a better idea than sized hardpoints. Sized hardpoints were just a terrible idea that wouldve seriously ruined the game had they been implemented.

What I like about signature hardpoints is that you can still put the PPCs in your side torsos if you so choose. But you give up the PPC quirks in doing so.

So rather than being forced to put the PPCs in your arms, like sized hardpoints would do; signature hardpoints give you the choice to put them in your arms and get the bonus, or put them in your torso and give up the bonus. And those kinds of choices are what mech customization should be about.

Edited by Khobai, 12 January 2016 - 10:57 AM.

[Tyler Valentine]

Khobai, on 12 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

What I like about signature hardpoints is that you can still put the PPCs in your side torsos if you so choose. But you give up the PPC quirks in doing so.

So rather than being forced to put the PPCs in your arms, like sized hardpoints would do; signature hardpoints give you the choice to put them in your arms and get the bonus, or put them in your torso and give up the bonus. And those kinds of choices are what mech customization should be about.

Exactly!