Jump to content

Mw5 Hardpoints, Did I See It Correct?


41 replies to this topic

#21 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 08:14 AM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 13 December 2019 - 08:13 AM, said:


SP? Yes, it would.




It's just as bad in a single player game; because there are now just a handful of good mechs and the rest of them are garbo even if all you're going to do is play them stock.

Edited by Prototelis, 13 December 2019 - 08:15 AM.


#22 Verilligo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 704 posts
  • LocationPodunk, U.S.A.

Posted 13 December 2019 - 08:15 AM

View PostMischiefSC, on 13 December 2019 - 07:16 AM, said:

Put this way - take Super Smash Bros, or Street Fighter or any other fighting game. If you can just put all the moves and abilities together into whatever character you want of course you can make one that's absurdly superior to everyone else. If you enjoy that, great - but that's going to eliminate all the real challenge from the game.

Fighting games are chiefly competitive multiplayer games. Your analogy falls a little flat, trying to apply the same logic to a SP game. That being said, there was no one way that was going to please everyone when it came to the MW5 mechlab. Many of the restraints placed on it are partly because they picked the second to most technologically boring era they possibly could have. Narratively, the era they chose is RICH with compelling stories and events, but it does not appear they decided to capitalize on that. Still, the limited amount of customization due to the desperately thin number of hardpoints and the heavy restrictions placed on those hardpoints is pretty crippling to the already stifled creativity in the mechlab. It also does precious little to dissuade tonnage creep, which is probably why they further placed heavy restrictions on drop weight per mission.

You do have an argument that allowing much freedom in modification would hurt the game's level of difficulty. My response to that is that their other decisions could have been made differently such that enabling more freedom would not have killed the difficulty level. The strict adherence to using essentially only tabletop stock mechs is one of those decisions that could have been changed.

#23 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,868 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 13 December 2019 - 08:20 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 13 December 2019 - 08:14 AM, said:


It's just as bad in a single player game; because there are now just a handful of good mechs and the rest of them are garbo even if all you're going to do is play them stock.


Take the Assassin with 2 small missile hardpoints and 1 medium energy hardpoint in MW5 for e.g.,. Even with the build restrictions, it can be made decent 'cause you're just dealing with AI. Once you progress past a threshold, you'll be getting your hands on another mech to deal with the difficulty increase. But, you'll still make use of that Assassin.

In a MP environment, you're going to scrap it to get some equipment from it to use on other chassis. You won't ever feel like fielding that Assassin.

#24 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 08:33 AM

iT hAs NoThInG tO dO wITh DiFfiCuLtY

#25 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,020 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 13 December 2019 - 08:36 AM

View PostNesutizale, on 13 December 2019 - 06:16 AM, said:

Construction rules are for construction, not modifying and far less are they for lore purpose but giveing tabletop players some more stuff to do.
True, but there are refit rules that cover this.

View PostNesutizale, on 13 December 2019 - 06:29 AM, said:

I remember cost and if stuff is avaible in a certain time periode but nothing about the time and difficulty of modifications. Where does one find these values?
Strategic Operations, I believe. If not there, then Tactical Operations. (sry, I constatntly get the two mixed up)

Edited by Horseman, 13 December 2019 - 08:38 AM.


#26 MeiSooHaityu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 10,912 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 13 December 2019 - 08:55 AM

I understand the decision, and with the sheer amount of mechs and variants in the game, I don't think it is going to be a really big issue either.

PGI wants the mechs to have purpose, and they want it to maintain their character (which is often linked to loadout).

Yes there are rules that allow modifications in TT. Issue is there is a lot of complexity and cost that is tied to those rules. The mods are expensive and time consuming, they might require the work done at a factory depending on how drastic the upgrade is, and there is a chance the upgrade could fail. All that is a lot to throw into a game. Also, at the end of the day, it still goes against the choice of maintaining a mech's character (which was PGI's design choice).

Now, some mods are allowed, and many of the more common ones in lore are still possible. A Jenner removing the SRM4 for armor and heat efficency. Swapping PPCs for Large Lasers (such as the Marauder along with many others) is also doable and common in lore.

Overall I understand PGI's decision and I can see some lore value in it. It maintains character, still allows low level nodding that was common (and within the capabilities of a Leopard Mechtech crew), and it also allows a player to look for later variants for more functionality.

As I play more, I may better decide whether I like the design choice or not. Regardless though, I can see why it is as it is.



#27 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,133 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 13 December 2019 - 10:12 AM

View PostMischiefSC, on 13 December 2019 - 07:16 AM, said:

Even the most wealthy and powerful mercs like Wolfs Dragoons didn't have 'Gunbag' mechs. Wildly customized mechs, literally even as much as we have right now, are incredibly rare outside of Solaris and even then it's largely 'sized hardpoints'. Absolutely and without question there's no real viable 'lore' to justify gunbag mech customization. Beyond that it comes down to balance. The AI has stock mechs, the more customization players can do the more of an advantage the player has, the less value there is to having multiple variants of even a wide variety of mechs and the less challenge the player has in playing the game as you just need a handful of mechs you can make be vastly superior to anything the AI has. So it'll be a thing you can do with modding but genuinely has no good gameplay reason to be in game aside from making it vastly easier for the player and eliminating progression, mech/build rarity, any point of Hero mechs and rare mech finds, etc. It's not 'lazy'. Game balance decisions are not about difficulty but where and how the game challenges the player. MW5, much like Battletech the tabletop game, is not about 'can I spend 55 tons to build the best possible killing machine that's superior to every other killing machine' but 'I have a Griffin, he has a Wolverine, can I manage range well enough to cripple him before he gets into SRM range'. Because a Griffin and a Wolverine are specific mechs with specific profiles, strengths and weaknesses. Put this way - take Super Smash Bros, or Street Fighter or any other fighting game. If you can just put all the moves and abilities together into whatever character you want of course you can make one that's absurdly superior to everyone else. If you enjoy that, great - but that's going to eliminate all the real challenge from the game. MW5 is PvE. The enemy is not customizing their mechs. All the customization you get is an advantage already, comparable with what the greatest heroes on Battletech lore could do. Gunbag customization just makes that broken. Do that as a mod in your own game but for balance reasons it wouldn't work in SP.

I love you.

#28 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,244 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 13 December 2019 - 12:01 PM

No matter what reason you construct to defend sized hatdpoints, it's a stupid system. That it is not obviously stupid doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid.
there is only one reason for hatdpoint sizes and that's because of weapon visuals, but it's also a question of visible fidelity and this end somewhere in the Omni-Pod Size area. A medium laser that can replace a PPC looks like **** when the pod is big enough for a PPC, no a good visual mechlab would only allow to replace a ppc with 3 or 4 medium lasers.

Mayne that's something for the mods, but hatdpoint sizes is only a declaration of cowardice- it's another way to day well wear not able to create a nice for every weapon system - so it's ok that people throw bad weapons from their mechs like the mentioned SRM4 on the Jenner. And because of pinpoint to replace them with a single Large is not very clever either.
You know when you have a great game when given the choice between SRM4 or three tons of armor you choose the SRM. (Had a house rule attempt a while ago - the SRM could cripple a enemy mech with a single volley (instead of 25 shots per ton the SRM 4 had only 4 shots - each SRM did 8dmg)

#29 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,368 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 12:32 PM

View PostSantaTheBest, on 13 December 2019 - 02:53 AM, said:

Hello guys,
I don't have the game right now, because even if I'm a huge fan, I'm not sure of this game at 100%.

Let me ask you something on Hardpoints in this game.

Let's take a Jenner JR7-D for example, it should have 2 energy slots for every arm (forget about tonnage for now).
  • In BATTLETECH, from HS, I can equip 2 Large Lasers per arm, even 2 PCC if I like. Because it says 2 energy and those two can be what I like. The only restriction is number and space.
  • In MW5, looking at some streamer looks a lot different, but please let me know if I'm wrong. You can't equip 2 Large Laser, even if you have two hardpoints, but just 2 SMALL lasers or 2 medium. There is a rule where you can't put something bigger because of space restriction. Is this correct?


Correct.

Quote

It looks like a huge limitation of freedom on how to build mech (I know that even sensors and engine are stripped away but is fine), because you can't much min-max and personalize them.

Pretty much. Though as part of a mod I'm doing, I'll have lore-friendly large lasers such as the Defiance Thunderbolt A5M Large Laser fit into a medium slot., and I already have a couple of medium lasers that fit into small slots, etc.

Quote

Thunderbolt A5M
Developed by Defiance Industries for the Zeus, the Defiance Thunderbolt A5M Large Laser is an extremely compact weapon. Limited by the available space on chassis of the Zeus, Defiance used their increasingly rare knowledge of fiber optics to dispense with the typical bulky barrel common to most other Large Lasers to design a smaller though no less effective weapon.[18]
Though Defiance was one of the few manufacturers who had the knowledge to work with fiber optics during the Succession Wars era,[18] by the Third Succession War even they were concerned the Thunderbolt A5M would join the ranks of LosTech as the conflict dragged on as the weapon's production rate began to slow due to its complexity.[19]

There's also the Cyclops Eye Large Laser.

Quote

Cyclops Eye
Developed towards the end of the Third Succession War primarily for the Drillson Heavy Hover Tank, the Cyclops Eye was an unconventional design. While most Succession Wars era heavy lasers feature vulnerable long barrels and focusing mirrors, this system needed only a small, slit-like emitter. This was a result of the system's use of a unique combination of laser and particle beam technology.[6][7] [8]
Instead of firing beam of light or a stream of particles, the Cyclops Eye used a combination of both to produce a beam of significant penetrating power. [6][7] The effect of this weapon is comparable to the large laser systems produced by Diverse Optics or Martell. The Cyclops Eye is less vulnerable to damage than a conventional system, and is also easier to maintain and manufacture. [6][7][8]

The two are important because they are canonically smaller versions of large lasers designed to fit into more compact areas. A PPC example is the Lord's Light PPC. As such, they should fit into smaller slots than their more standard brethren. There are also some oversized examples, too but I'm not gonna list them. Sadly these are not in MW5 currently, but they are among the nearly 200 era-appropriate lore-based weapon variants I'm putting in (nearly the full 66 unique variants in medium lasers alone, but likely only gonna do about 30 ML at first and add more in later mod updates).

Quote

I don't have seen how it works on a bigger mech with more free Hardpoints, like the Thunderbolt TDR-5SS on the right arm, with 1 free Hardpoint and a PCC mounted.. what I can put in the remaining one? Posted Image
Posted Image

PCC?
Oh PPC..and there's no free hardpoint in the arm, if it wasn't previously occupied it's no longer existing, PGI's inflated hardpoint numbers from MWO did not transfer over.

This, unfortunately, really hurt the Catapult A1...

I'm considering the possibility of having MWO point numbers on mechs. Though I'm going for sized softpoints (energy, missile, ballistic doesn't matter; but if it is a different type than before it'll take longer and be more expensive to do).

Edited by Koniving, 13 December 2019 - 12:51 PM.


#30 SantaTheBest

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 04:50 PM

Thanks for all your reply.

I'm not into the Battletech lore or tabletop but I play since mech commander 1

I see that most of the point on this gameplay choice: sized hardpoints = more variant utility.
As I said I'm not a veteran but I disagree. What about:

different hardpoint type = different variants

With this, you can basically replicate what is in place right now with a lot more variety.
Variant A 2energy and one missile, variant B 2missile 1 energy, and so on.

Also because with this method space management is... useless.

Another point was on IA, sorry but I disagree again.
IA should be based on weapons that you are carrying not hardpoints or variant. IA should keep the distance based on what range and cover he deals more damage (also some other stuff of course). So nothing to do on variant or hardpoints

Right now IA is a disaster, no one keeps long-range ad LMR are just useless (just carrier are good).

Edited by SantaTheBest, 13 December 2019 - 04:53 PM.


#31 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,368 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 05:25 PM

View PostHorseman, on 13 December 2019 - 08:36 AM, said:

True, but there are refit rules that cover this.
Strategic Operations, I believe. If not there, then Tactical Operations. (sry, I constantly get the two mixed up)


Another place is the Mechwarrior / Battletech RPG in their various editions, which get expansive into the exact equipment you need (such as needing at least another mech with hands or a loader/hauler mech in order to do the job; required for engine replacement), their costs, and difficulty in performing the repairs under various conditions from in the field, in the repair bay while in combat, to in a proper mech bay under ideal conditions.

View PostNesutizale, on 13 December 2019 - 06:16 AM, said:

Construction rules are for construction, not modifying and far less are they for lore purpose but giveing tabletop players some more stuff to do.

Technically construction rules are there for the same reason gaps in "variants" are there, so that players are encouraged to contribute to the universe by creating their own variants to be a part of the universe.
Like this.
Posted Image
The repair and refit rules are there to govern campaigns and to add a sense of realism not found in one off "I put a gundam into Battletech" construction rules.

----------------

View PostSantaTheBest, on 13 December 2019 - 04:50 PM, said:

I see that most of the point on this gameplay choice: sized hardpoints = more variant utility.
As I said I'm not a veteran but I disagree. What about:

different hardpoint type = different variants

(Edit to have it translate better.)

You described how MWO did their hardpoints. I agree it gives options that MW5 does not.
PGI should have kept MWO's hardpoint counts for MW5.
Even so much as different sizes across the variants that are otherwise too identical would have done wonders.

(My poor Catapult A1.. only 2 missile hardpoints. What am I supposed to do with that?)

This is one reason my game modification is going for a "Softpoint" system instead. Soft, flexible, an "anything of a specified size can go here" slot.

Instead of medium ballistic hardpoint...
I would instead use a medium softpoint and it would be your choice whether you put in energy weapons, missile launchers, or cannons.

Keeps true to the refit rules of battletech, allows for more variety, keeps the intention of the limitations. It also loosens the limitations to allow considerable freedom.

From there we can use specific weapon brands to have medium slot large lasers (instead of only large slot large lasers), small slot medium lasers, AC/5 brands that can fit on small slots, etc. This way there will be ways to expand even a Charger Battlemech's many small lasers.

...if PGI ever puts the Charger in.

When I played Mechwarrior Tactics, one of my first customizations was to put an AC/2 on a Jenner on the center torso.
It was awesome.

Edited by Koniving, 13 December 2019 - 05:32 PM.


#32 SantaTheBest

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 14 December 2019 - 05:52 PM

I have taken a look at most of variants and "sized hardpoints = variety" sorry but is a ********.
There are plenty of heavy and assults mech that are the same even with a different variant.

From some variant the only change is a 0.1 of cooling and nothing more, some are even the same.

This is because they have probably taken the MWO variants removing all additional and not used hardpoints.. the results are variant tha are the same damn mech. Not speed, not armor, nothing is different.. There are plenty. Tomorrow i will post some images

#33 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,244 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 15 December 2019 - 01:41 AM

Yep the problem is you need a BTNerd to have variants that really let you choose wisely, did this a life time ago
https://docs.google....it?usp=drivesdk

A three part Quirk system, based on the physical model (bigger size = more armor, doesn't make sense from a semi-logical POV but necessary for game)
The next is the primary role - a Awesome was build to play down a accurate long range barrage - sniper.

Other quirks are dedicated by the exact usage of that Mech, a vanguard (8Q) was supposed to advance to take fire and to dish out even more - used to be the anchor of the battle line and the tip of the spear that smashes through enemy lines.

Funny thing is MWO had this, to have a vanguard in CB was a valid tactic something that backs the line and be a bullet magnet unfortunately the God-fosaken hsr turned MWO in a twitch shooter and the battle line and real tactics vanished into peak-a-boo

#34 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:49 AM

The problem is you need to not use variants designed to balance a completely different game. Don't need a BT nerd for that; just need loadouts that don't suck on purpose.

ALL SHOOTERS WITH MANUAL AIM ARE TWITCH SHOOTERS; all of them. Even the slow ones. MWO is exceptionally slow for a shooter; if you don't believe me try playing some other shooting games.

Edited by Prototelis, 15 December 2019 - 05:50 AM.


#35 SantaTheBest

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 15 December 2019 - 08:03 AM

Here I'm with some examples:
Highlander 732 and 733C

https://mwo.gamepedi...lander_HGN-733C
https://mwo.gamepedi...hlander_HGN-732

there are quite some differences, slots are different, etc..

Here are screenshots of MW5:

https://imgur.com/e0Hlrhd
https://imgur.com/JLA3QFn

the difference? AC20 and Gauss.. so something I can reproduce with one variant, I don't even need the second one.

Another:
King Crab 000, 0000 and 000B

https://mwo.gamepedi...g_Crab_KGC-0000
https://mwo.gamepedi...ng_Crab_KGC-000
https://mwo.gamepedi...g_Crab_KGC-000B

again, I can see a lot of differences. Positions of hardpoints, type, spacing and so on. Here are three screenshots from the game:

https://imgur.com/9GboFbT
https://imgur.com/kzBmaNz
https://imgur.com/9oedN8A

again, those three are the same damn mech. There are no variants at all, AIV LRM vs LRM is not a variant is the same mech.

There are plenty of those examples:
  • Mauler.
  • Victor
  • Zeus
  • Black knight
  • Dragon
  • and many many more with variants that are the same mech
And concluding there are Mechs that are complete trash. They have removed additional hardpoints (those that are not used) so there are variants that with
  • the same amount of armor
  • same speed
  • same all
  • they just have one or two weapon less the standard variant. W.T.F
So please don't tell me that in this way "there is more variety" because is not true

Edited by SantaTheBest, 15 December 2019 - 08:04 AM.


#36 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,166 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 15 December 2019 - 09:34 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 13 December 2019 - 06:18 AM, said:

The construction rules already reflect how long and how difficult modifications and repairs are to make.

Nope construction rules have been very bad since day one, no matter how many recons there have been, they remain crap.

Even taking in to consideration its an abstract system, it is quite possibly the worse I've seen in any tabletop form, the almost insta heel of mech repair bays. blah blah.

The people that created these rules should feel ashamed and go stand in the corner, and let those with a clue on weapons design take over, and actually design a system that is somewhere in the region of being vaguely correct, and not out there with the pixies and the space dust, this franchise as always had in all it's forms.

#37 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,451 posts

Posted 15 December 2019 - 12:14 PM

View PostOdanan, on 13 December 2019 - 04:41 AM, said:

It's a deliberate (and lore accurate) game design choice, and I approve it entirely.


It's not lore accurate, it's only accurate if you can't get access to a facility to do the retrofit you want. Quit mis-spinning it.

#38 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 4,935 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 15 December 2019 - 01:42 PM

A large laser Jenner would be very unlikely for the time period in question. Most of what people consider customization is really just the use of commercially produced kits that plug and play for a specific chassis.

Mind you such kits are not common during the late 3rd Succession War era(the economic and industrial low-point of the universe) and especially so for a mech whose last factory was destroyed in 2848.

You can build such a custom mech but you would be using one-off rules. For the worst case example of this see the frankenmech rules example in Strategic Ops. 16,000+ man hours assuming you make all the dice rolls successfully. A custom Jenner is obviously not a frankenmech, but it is a large departure from any existing stock variant.

#39 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,690 posts

Posted 15 December 2019 - 04:31 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 13 December 2019 - 07:42 AM, said:

Lol except most of the mechs in this game are jigglypuff.

You can have all of the things you outlined in your post without most mechs in the game being made objectively terrible. Forcing board game balance into the FPS does not work.


The mechs are supposed to be objectively terrible because that's how the game was designed originally. That's the lore.

Look, Star Trek has transporters, warp speed and replicators. If you want to do a Star Trek game and literally set it on the Next Generation Enterprise you can't just remove those concepts because they make game balance not work for whatever genre game you're making.

3025 Battletech. These are the mechs. The lore is literally about that many mechs were mediocre/bad due to industry issues or failure to reproduce original parts. I get that the lore isn't your jam but it would have been stupid of PGI to make a MechWarrior SP game and diverge so massively from the lore.

Discord is also full of people who find it too hard as is. I absolutely 100% get your argument and have argued repeatedly for MWO to diverge from lore as needed for balance but MW5 is another animal completely.

It being what it is isn't a bad game design - you're just not the core audience for it. Mods however will get it to be what you want.

#40 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,368 posts

Posted 15 December 2019 - 06:25 PM

View PostSantaTheBest, on 15 December 2019 - 08:03 AM, said:

Here I'm with some examples:
Highlander 732 and 733C

https://mwo.gamepedi...lander_HGN-733C
https://mwo.gamepedi...hlander_HGN-732

there are quite some differences, slots are different, etc..

Here are screenshots of MW5:

https://imgur.com/e0Hlrhd
https://imgur.com/JLA3QFn

the difference? AC20 and Gauss.. so something I can reproduce with one variant, I don't even need the second one.


One has CASE which as far as I know can't be replicated in MW5. (But probably can).


The canonical difference that PGI isn't showing us because chances are they probably don't actually know and aren't really paying much attention...

732 has Holly-20 direct-fire LRM, Holly-6 SRM, M7 Gauss Rifle, and Harmon Starclass medium lasers.

The 733 variants are a technological downgrade but a manueverable upgrade in terms of range of movement. It is physically different (slightly thinner, a little taller and significantly more nimble. This is in addition to being redesigned to be both slightly easier to produce and to fix). It sports a Hollis Ballista-20 ballistic-launch LRMs (considerably cheaper launcher and missiles; missiles are less accurate due to cutting off their thrusters once they reach 200 meters into the air and 'coasting' down but because of this the enemy doesn't get alerted to incoming missiles and AMS won't react if the thrusters cut off out of range), newer Photech 806c medium lasers which had a higher rate of fire at the cost of power per shot, while keeping the same Holly-6 SRM. The LRM-launcher is placed on the hip rather than on the arm, freeing the arm to make melee strikes. The 733c is different from the 733 in that it's using an unspecified AC/20 instead of the Mydron Class B AC/10 (80mm fully automatic).

While meaningless in MW5/MWO, this fluff is going into my mod by actually having these changes be shown in the variants.

Quote

Another:
King Crab 000, 0000 and 000B

https://mwo.gamepedi...g_Crab_KGC-0000
https://mwo.gamepedi...ng_Crab_KGC-000
https://mwo.gamepedi...g_Crab_KGC-000B

again, I can see a lot of differences. Positions of hardpoints, type, spacing and so on. Here are three screenshots from the game:

https://imgur.com/9GboFbT
https://imgur.com/kzBmaNz
https://imgur.com/9oedN8A

again, those three are the same damn mech. There are no variants at all, AIV LRM vs LRM is not a variant is the same mech.

(Edit: Dug up some more specifics)
Here's another case where PGI could have changed the default equipment to reflect them a bit better.
000 is the primary variant.
It sports twin 120mm Deathgiver AC/20s. These offer a 12 shot magazine per reload, with 3 round bursts (4 bursts per magazine ["cassette"]). [Each 3 round burst does 5 damage]. The Exostar Large Laser and Simpson-15 LRM give it accurate long range capabilities, and as a command unit it had a superior sensor suite. It also sports Ferro armor as well as CASE to protect from ammo explosions.

The 0000 is the mass produced variant.
It lacks ferro, making it cheaper and easier to repair compared to the lighter but more difficult to work with and replace material. Its sensors and targeting system were downgraded since it made a poor command unit and the overall preference was to instead have it guard key structures.
It carries twin Imperator D autocannons which are 90mm and can fire as either automatic or in ten shell bursts [20 shells to get 20 damage]. It sports a Doombud LRM-15 launcher which fires the missiles in a spread that then converge on the target from wider angles to make it harder for anti-missile systems to counter them, and a Magna Mk III Large Laser sports a wider area of effect (a wider beam) and stronger power supply to keep from losing damage potential, which they felt was necessary due to this model's reduced sensor capabilities (in other words to compensate for bad aim). Agility was also a lower concern for this variant because it was often used as an "Area of Denial" mech rather than an attacker. As such the 0000 is more rigid than the 000 (slower to accelerate, slower to turn, slower to twist).

The 0000 is also five times more common than the 000, though the two are visually indistinguishable from a distance (they look the same despite not being the same).

The 000b is a royal guard variant; it shouldn't exist to us.
This unit comes stock with double heatsinks and extra ammunition, Artemis IV enhancement to the Simpson-15 LRM launcher, and the Exostar was replaced with an unspecified large laser. Since this is built from a 000, it is just a deviation from the standard with different equipment. It continues to be a Command unit with the higher sensor suite. Though as the more expensive and important variant, it's also possible it got other unwritten enhancements, because nobody alive in the time period of MW5 would have ever seen one.

If these mechs don't at least start with different tiers of the weapons in MW5, it'd be pretty hard to show their differences and I'd say PGI let us down here.

They should have kept some hardpoint deviations in the mix. But further than that, as someone said you'd need a BT nerd to create the real reason these are different. As such, my mod will be reflecting this since I'm making these vastly different weapons.

Edited by Koniving, 15 December 2019 - 07:33 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users