25 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

Well because slot numbers are far more complicated and somewhat pointless. People immediately grasp the difference between medium and small lasers and large lasers and PPCs. The difference between AC2s and AC20s is pretty obvious as well.

I just went with what felt natural to me and simple. Simple things are more likely to be implemented than complicated things.

Slot-based hardpoints aren't really any more complicated than the existing slot-based mechlab. I think that they actually overlap with that current mechlab more clearly that way.

SHD-2D2 Bare Bones

Slots are already a core aspect of the mechlab, so I think that sticking to the existing system makes more sense than creating a completely separate layer that goes over it.

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

The issue with going by slots is with Clan weapons and other special weapons because they are smaller. For ballistics, say you want 1-5 slots to be one category and 6-10 to be the other. Works pretty good for IS with Clans the LBX10 becomes "small" instead of lumped with the AC10s and 20s. Clan LRMs are the same way. Perhaps that is good, I don't know. It is just a suggestion after all.

Clan vs IS issues are taken care of by nature of the segregated tech bases. If we could mix tech, then the hardpoint size differences would definitely be a huge issue, but since it's puretech that gets avoided.

I think that in some specific cases the critslot values might be out of whack because of TT (e.g. why are Clan UACs smaller than Clan LBX), so maybe instead of being 100% based on mechlab slots we could manually set a separate hardpoint slot size to get around that issue.

Like, for example, the LB 5-X is normally 4 slots, but we could make it count as 3 slots (match the Clan Ultra 5) for the sake of hardpoints.

In general, I like the granular style of slots more than the binary "you're either big or you're small" system.

[Damia Savon]

FupDup, on 04 April 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

Slot-based hardpoints aren't really any more complicated than the existing slot-based mechlab. I think that they actually overlap with that current mechlab more clearly that way.

SHD-2D2 Bare Bones

Slots are already a core aspect of the mechlab, so I think that sticking to the existing system makes more sense than creating a completely separate layer that goes over it.



Clan vs IS issues are taken care of by nature of the segregated tech bases. If we could mix tech, then the hardpoint size differences would definitely be a huge issue, but since it's puretech that gets avoided.

I think that in some specific cases the critslot values might be out of whack because of TT (e.g. why are Clan UACs smaller than Clan LBX), so maybe instead of being 100% based on mechlab slots we could manually set a separate hardpoint slot size to get around that issue.

Like, for example, the LB 5-X is normally 4 slots, but we could make it count as 3 slots (match the Clan Ultra 5) for the sake of hardpoints.

In general, I like the granular style of slots more than the binary "you're either big or you're small" system.

Well I understand your point and agree, given the mech lab, that it makes more sense. I'm not wedded to my idea.

My concern regarding clan weapons is that it might impact mech balance. IS mech with single slot lrm points can only take the lrm5 while on the clan side it is the lrm5 or lrm10.

More granular might be better but could it be too restrictive?

[Damia Savon]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 April 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

Well depends on whether we are talking those try-hards as comp players, or just those that mimic the builds that comp players use.

Comp players have diverse opinions about sized hardpoints, but the forced 3 variant system seems to be universally disliked (there is no real reason for 4 Black Knights, Kintaros, Grasshoppers, etc). For example I play comp, but much preferred the MW4 mechlab system as a whole, including the sized hardpoints (though I think they should've been more granular) because it can force flavor and distinction between variants. I also happen to think most variants are redundant or create role overlap that complicates balance (sized hardpoints or not).

Thanks for your views. Perhaps "wanna be" is better than "try hard". The comp scene is different than the underhive where I dwell. I was thinking more of players who go with the meta regardless because to them "meta" means "easy win".

[cazidin]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Thanks for your views. Perhaps "wanna be" is better than "try hard". The comp scene is different than the underhive where I dwell. I was thinking more of players who go with the meta regardless because to them "meta" means "easy win".

I'm sorry that people regularly disrespect you simply because you regularly pilot mechs with LRMs. I personally think that, at this time, they're not very good weapons but I've seen skilled pilots make them work incredibly well.

Back to the point of sized hardpoints. It would just be a herculean task for PGI to recode the game and implement sized hardpoints. It can be done but I don't see them doing it and they still have a lot of other balance issues to resolve first, which actually includes buffing LRMs, PPCs, LBX and a few other balance changes. #CommandConsole. #Neverforget. #PGIforgot.

[LordNothing]

my idea is to make all quirks default modules. these could be overridden with custom modules once you reach the master tier. this would mean your builds are no longer locked into particular roles.

[CDLord HHGD]

Hey, lots of cool discussion stemming from my admittedly bad idea (was kinda the purpose).

Mission accomplished.