25 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

A thought just occurred and I figured I'd jot it down for discussion. No clue if it's a good idea, bad, pro or anti-meta. Just a thought.


Make all hardpoints identical across all variants of a particular chassis and let the quirks define the variants.

-Reduce hardpoint inflation to compensate for the additional different hardpoints from other variants. Example, if A has 1 energy on an arm in TT and thus three energy in MWO and B has the same but with ballistic then post this change the mech would have 1 energy and 1 ballistic.

If you say this is a terribad idea, I'm likely to agree with you. Just a different way of looking at things is all.

Edited by CD LoreHammer Lord, 04 April 2016 - 06:19 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Try to apply that to the Trebuchet line. Most have missiles, but the 7K is focused on Direct-fire weapons. How do you keep all the hardpoints the same across the Trebs?! Or the Hunchbacks...

Are you saying the Hunchback 4G should have the ballistics hardpoint and also the missile hardpoints from the 4J?

You just CREATED hardpoint inflation..

Edited by Prosperity Park, 04 April 2016 - 06:28 AM.

[FupDup]

Do you mean that every variant would get all of these hardpoints simultaneously? I'm trying to imagine this on a Hunchback, and it basically turns that mech into an Omnimech that can carry any loadout on any variant. Do all of their arm lasers combine to create like 5 lasers per arm?

Verdict: Probability a terribad idea.

I would honestly just rather have only one variant per mech, with that variant having custom hardpoints that are designed to capture the main "persona" of the mech in question. It would reduce the massive amount of redundancy that the variant system creates, but it wouldn't ever happen because of the "Gotta Grind Em All" requirement for the 3 variant system (which I hate with eternal hellfire).

[CDLord HHGD]

Prosperity Park, on 04 April 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

Try to apply that to the Trebuchet line. Most have missiles, but the 7K is focused on Direct-fire weapons. How do you keep all the hardpoints the same across the Trebs?! Or the Hunchbacks...

Are you saying the Hunchback 4G should have the ballistics hardpoint and also the missile hardpoints from the 4J?

You just CREATED hardpoint inflation..

Well, reduced the MWO inflation and added the others.... So not created, PGI created. I also didn't reduce... I supplanted.

All this was really meant to do was offer up a different way of looking at balance assuming things aren't gona change. While my bad idea is bad, maybe it'll inspire a good idea.

Edited by CD LoreHammer Lord, 04 April 2016 - 06:43 AM.

[Damia Savon]

The real solution, in my not so humble nor original opinion, is: weapon specific hard points.

Large Missile: LRMs of all kinds plus Clan versions.
Small Missile: SRMS, SSRMS, NARC plus Clan versions.

Large Energy: LL, ERLL, PPCs, ERPPCs, LPLs plus Clan versions.
Small Energy: ML, MPL, SL, SPL, TAG, Flamers plus Clan versions

Large Ballistics: AC10, AC20, UAC10, UAC20, LBX10, LBX20, GAUSS plus Clan versions
Small Ballistics: AC2, AC5, UAC2, UAC5,LBX2, LBX5, MGs plus Clan versions

1. This gives each mech a distinctive flavor in line with lore and allows actual variations among chasis beyond 5 Mls or 5 MPLs.
2. It can favor mixed weapon loadouts vs. just boating one type of weapon.
3. It stops the horrible, generic, vanilla, my mech can do everything, bs that is now in MWO.
4. Quirks will be focused on specific weapon types and not just boring vanilla quirks.
5. It would reduce the variable geometry needed on existing and new mechs.

Probably too late for something like this because people will cry if their mechs cannot boat all LL or all MPLs or whatever. It would solve a lot of issues though and bring better mech balance into the game.

*Edited to add Gauss under Large Ballistics.

Edited by Damia Savon, 04 April 2016 - 07:31 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 04 April 2016 - 06:27 AM, said:

I would honestly just rather have only one variant per mech, with that variant having custom hardpoints that are designed to capture the main "persona" of the mech in question.

It's almost like MW4 did this for a reason.....

[Dimento Graven]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

The real solution, in my not so humble nor original opinion, is: weapon specific hard points.

Large Missile: LRMs of all kinds plus Clan versions.
Small Missile: SRMS, SSRMS, NARC plus Clan versions.

Large Energy: LL, ERLL, PPCs, ERPPCs, LPLs plus Clan versions.
Small Energy: ML, MPL, SL, SPL, TAG, Flamers plus Clan versions

Large Ballistics: AC10, AC20, UAC10, UAC20, LBX10, LBX20 plus Clan versions
Small Ballistics: AC2, AC5, UAC2, UAC5,LBX2, LBX5, MGs plus Clan versions

1. This gives each mech a distinctive flavor in line with lore and allows actual variations among chasis beyond 5 Mls or 5 MPLs.
2. It can favor mixed weapon loadouts vs. just boating one type of weapon.
3. It stops the horrible, generic, vanilla, my mech can do everything, bs that is now in MWO.
4. Quirks will be focused on specific weapon types and not just boring vanilla quirks.
5. It would reduce the variable geometry needed on existing and new mechs.

Probably too late for something like this because people will cry if their mechs cannot boat all LL or all MPLs or whatever. It would solve a lot of issues though and bring better mech balance into the game.

The only reason I hate this idea is because you failed to list gauss.

Otherwise... It'd be really interesting to give THIS idea a shot...

[cazidin]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 April 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

It's almost like MW4 did this for a reason.....

...and MW4 was great but I don't think we'll ever see sized hardpoints. It's just too late now.

[Damia Savon]

Dimento Graven, on 04 April 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

The only reason I hate this idea is because you failed to list gauss.

Otherwise... It'd be really interesting to give THIS idea a shot...

Sorry, Gauss would be a large ballistic. I knew I was forgetting a weapon!

[Dimento Graven]

cazidin, on 04 April 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

...and MW4 was great but I don't think we'll ever see sized hardpoints. It's just too late now.

It would be a significant redesign...

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

Sorry, Gauss would be a large ballistic. I knew I was forgetting a weapon!

Oh much too late now. I will now and forever be totally against this idea, and will fight loudly and vociferously against to an extremely emotionally unreasonable degree.

The war is on.

;p

[Damia Savon]

cazidin, on 04 April 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

...and MW4 was great but I don't think we'll ever see sized hardpoints. It's just too late now.

It just depends on how much PGI wants to listen to crying. I think a lot of people would like it because it makes having different versions of the same mech worthwhile. It changes up, to an extent, which mechs are meta. It would give some mechs a reason to be taken. But yea.. the sobbing of the try hards would pretty much kill the idea.

[cazidin]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

It just depends on how much PGI wants to listen to crying. I think a lot of people would like it because it makes having different versions of the same mech worthwhile. It changes up, to an extent, which mechs are meta. It would give some mechs a reason to be taken. But yea.. the sobbing of the try hards would pretty much kill the idea.

No need to insult people now. The problem isn't necessarily that the system will be critiqued or that reviews for it could be mixed, and thus far it seems that many would like it, the problem is that it'd be difficult to code and implement for a company that takes a year or two to change CW, Flamers, TC, etc. They would have to drop everything else scheduled and even then we won't see sized hardpoints for ATLEAST 6 months.

*Not to mention that this game was designed to use the critical slot system of TT, which is completely absent in MW4.

Edited by cazidin, 04 April 2016 - 07:40 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

The real solution, in my not so humble nor original opinion, is: weapon specific hard points.

Large Missile: LRMs of all kinds plus Clan versions.
Small Missile: SRMS, SSRMS, NARC plus Clan versions.

Large Energy: LL, ERLL, PPCs, ERPPCs, LPLs plus Clan versions.
Small Energy: ML, MPL, SL, SPL, TAG, Flamers plus Clan versions

Large Ballistics: AC10, AC20, UAC10, UAC20, LBX10, LBX20, GAUSS plus Clan versions
Small Ballistics: AC2, AC5, UAC2, UAC5,LBX2, LBX5, MGs plus Clan versions

1. This gives each mech a distinctive flavor in line with lore and allows actual variations among chasis beyond 5 Mls or 5 MPLs.
2. It can favor mixed weapon loadouts vs. just boating one type of weapon.
3. It stops the horrible, generic, vanilla, my mech can do everything, bs that is now in MWO.
4. Quirks will be focused on specific weapon types and not just boring vanilla quirks.
5. It would reduce the variable geometry needed on existing and new mechs.

Probably too late for something like this because people will cry if their mechs cannot boat all LL or all MPLs or whatever. It would solve a lot of issues though and bring better mech balance into the game.

*Edited to add Gauss under Large Ballistics.

Small Missile: SSRM2, SRM2, SRM4, SSRM4, LRM5, NARC
Large Missile SRM6, SSRM6, LRM10, LRM15, LRM20

makes more sense

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

the sobbing of the try hards would pretty much kill the idea.

I don't think you even understand who the tryhards are nor do you understand what they want.

[Damia Savon]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

Small Missile: SSRM2, SRM2, SRM4, SSRM4, LRM5, NARC
Large Missile SRM6, SSRM6, LRM10, LRM15, LRM20

makes more sense

Probably but when I originally thought of it I went with Long and Short range missiles but then switched to Large and Small since everything else was that way. I prefer a distinction between SRMs/SSRMs and LRMs because SRM mechs are fundamentally different than LRM mechs and I really don't want to confuse the two.

[Damia Savon]

cazidin, on 04 April 2016 - 07:39 AM, said:

No need to insult people now. The problem isn't necessarily that the system will be critiqued or that reviews for it could be mixed, and thus far it seems that many would like it, the problem is that it'd be difficult to code and implement for a company that takes a year or two to change CW, Flamers, TC, etc. They would have to drop everything else scheduled and even then we won't see sized hardpoints for ATLEAST 6 months.

*Not to mention that this game was designed to use the critical slot system of TT, which is completely absent in MW4.

I primarily run LRM mechs so I get at least one or more insults every time I drop. If I'm a bit bitchy and defensive, well this game and the children who tend to play it have made me so.

I don't know enough about designing computer games to have any idea how hard it would be to code or how long it will take. I'm sure it will take some time and resources. I think it would need tested to see how it works and if it is really beneficial overall to the game to justify going mech by mech and changing the hard points. Personally I think it would but there are like 300 individual mechs in the game so that is a lot of work. *shrugs*

[FupDup]

On the sub-topic of sized hardpoints, I still don't get why people insist on named categories rather than a specific size number per weapon. Like for example, a PPC takes up 3 critical slots, Medium Laser is 1 critical slot, etc. It's more fitting because it actually goes hand-in-hand with the way that critslots interact with building the mech in the mechlab.

In Battletech there is no such thing as a "small" or "large" weapon. The Large Laser isn't a "large" weapon, it's a 2-slot weapon. The Small Laser isn't a "small" weapon, it's a 1-slot weapon. The AC/20 isn't a "large" weapon, it's a 10-slot weapon. Etc.

[Damia Savon]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 April 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

I don't think you even understand who the tryhards are nor do you understand what they want.

Entirely possible. If you want to educate me regarding my perceived mistake then I am all ears.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Damia Savon, on 04 April 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

Entirely possible. If you want to educate me regarding my perceived mistake then I am all ears.

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).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 04 April 2016 - 08:38 AM.

[Damia Savon]

FupDup, on 04 April 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

On the sub-topic of sized hardpoints, I still don't get why people insist on named categories rather than a specific size number per weapon. Like for example, a PPC takes up 3 critical slots, Medium Laser is 1 critical slot, etc. It's more fitting because it actually goes hand-in-hand with the way that critslots interact with building the mech in the mechlab.

In Battletech there is no such thing as a "small" or "large" weapon. The Large Laser isn't a "large" weapon, it's a 2-slot weapon. The Small Laser isn't a "small" weapon, it's a 1-slot weapon. The AC/20 isn't a "large" weapon, it's a 10-slot weapon. Etc.

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.

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.

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