18 replies to this topic

[Yastin]

I've played quite a bit of MW5 now, and I've read quite a few of the complaints about the system, but the one that strikes the biggest chord with me has to be the hardpoint issue, and I think I know why...

The sized hardpoints themselves are not an issue, necessarily, but rather the fact that every mech variant has exactly as many and as large of hardpoints as it uses AND ONLY THAT MANY.

I went back to MWO to play with a friend that couldn't afford 5 yet, and I bought a Vindicator, since I was really enjoying mine in MW5, but when I took it into the mechlab of MWO I realized that thing had 2 energy hardpoints on each arm, and allowed me to switch out the light laser on the left arm (with a ridiculously large housing) with something bigger, or even just two medium lasers.

I was, for just a moment, mystified because I'd forgot that variants in MWO could even come with unused hardpoints, but it got me thinking, why don't they in this game? Why do no mechs come with any extra 'slots', or any under-equipped ones? Especially certain models like the Vindicator with the gimp laser on the big left arm (contrasting a medium laser on its tiny head mount.) Or, say, the ASN-101, that has a right and left torso small laser that look big enough to support mediums.

It really does hamper the customization excessively, in my eyes. Very few variants come with maxed armor, for instance, because then there wouldn't be any trade-off to make by under-stocking hardpoints or getting rid of equipment to fit more armor. In the same way, without any 'upwards' room in hardpoints, there's no interesting compromise to be made in that direction. I can't get rid of jump-jets to put on a couple more weapons, only to sometimes put a better version of the same weapon in the same slot. And honestly, those options take so long to open up on most weapons that they might as well not. Small lasers can be eventually upgraded to pulse or ER versions, but that's more than half-way through the campaign. Replacing almost any missile slot comes down to choosing between LRMs and SRMs and fitting the largest that the slot size allows... And ballistic slots are similar to Energy slots, in that LBX, UACs, etc. are so rare that you can't use them for half the campaign. So the most interesting thing you get to decide for most of the campaign is if you replace the Large Lasers with PPCs, replace Machine Guns with AC/2s (which is an actual choice, since you have to underequip in other areas to fit that kind of weight difference), or if you switch out small lasers/flamers.

So yeah, I don't think that the hardpoint size system is the issue, just that no allowance is made for expansion, even where it's logical. Every hardpoint of every Variant comes with a weapon of it's own size, never under, and there's never any space for extra (even where it plainly physically exists).

[Dee Eight]

It was a decision taken based on previous MW games and the need to avoid having to teach critical space rules to people who are likely new to the Battletech unitverse. Also MWO is unique in having ridiculous #s of extra hard points on mechs that never had that many weapons in any variant produced in the lore. At least as far as the first person view ones are concerned. MechCommander 2 which is an icon / map based game similar to command and conquer, also allowed ridiculous #s of weapons if you wanted by also ignoring any sort of critical space restrictions.

Because MW5 ignores critical spaces altogether, its possible to cram a lot more into mechs than is actually possible in battletech or MWO. On some mechs I have 14-15 critical spaces worth of gear crammed into the side torsos. This is easy to achieve when the game ignores the extra critical slots taken up by using Artemis on missile launchers for example, or the fact that AC/10s take up more space than AC/5s, though both are classed as medium size ballistic weapons.

[Angel of Annihilation]

For myself I just wish they allowed a bit more flexibility like being able to add one size larger to a hard point rather than just being able to install smaller into larger. There are a quite a few variants in the game that are so gimped by their hardpoints they are useless.

There are also some that are just awkward. The La Malinche for example. I was very interested in running that variant for my personal mech but having a single medium and single small energy just doesn't synergize well. Also I would really like to be able to mount a Gauss in the torso but nope.

Don't get me wrong, I think MWO went way, way overboard on the customization, especially on IS mechs but I wish there was just a bit more weapons customization available.

[Koniving]

Angel of Annihilation, on 05 January 2020 - 11:56 AM, said:

For myself I just wish they allowed a bit more flexibility like being able to add one size larger to a hard point rather than just being able to install smaller into larger. There are a quite a few variants in the game that are so gimped by their hardpoints they are useless.

You may like some aspects of my weapon's mod once I get the tools to put them in (all I've got left is the 3d models, the texture work, and getting them into the game and hardpoint tweaks to mechs but stats and the like I got down for 201 weapons now).

Some weapons in existing lore are known to be oversized, such as the Nightwind, which in theory would need a size larger to take it.
Meanwhile some weapons like the Cyclops Industries, Defiance licensed Cyclops Eye large laser/PPC hybrid and the Defiance Industries Thunderbolt A5M are both considered to be very compact weapons, fitting in a medium slot rather than a large one.

[mad kat]

The Wolfhound in MW5' is a prime example of having zero distinction between variants.

[Yastin]

Wait, somebody finds critical slots a 'hard concept'? Really? I find it pretty hard to believe that anybody purchasing a mech game featuring heavy customization would get into the mechlab, gaze upon the many slots and differently sized weapons, and then burble incoherently and fold, pressing their hands over their eyes to make the scary maths go away. I could figure out Mechwarrior 2 when I was but a wee babby. Piranha must have super-low expectations of people if that reasoning is really the official story.

[Odanan]

I really like the hardpoint system how it is in the game.

[FRAGTAST1C]

The hardpoint system is fine. What's not good is how most mech chassis don't have different sized hardpoints and are almost a clone of each other. Also, how some assault mechs like the Annihilator can't mount even a single large ballistic weapon. Sure, it can do dakka well but across the variants, not a single one can use an AC20 or a Gauss Rifle. Would it have killed immersion if I went with 3xAC2 + 1 Gauss Rifle? Instead, the best right now is 4xUAC5 or 4xAC10/LBx10.

[Koniving]

FRAGTAST1C, on 05 January 2020 - 06:17 PM, said:

The hardpoint system is fine. What's not good is how most mech chassis don't have different sized hardpoints and are almost a clone of each other. Also, how some assault mechs like the Annihilator can't mount even a single large ballistic weapon. Sure, it can do dakka well but across the variants, not a single one can use an AC20 or a Gauss Rifle. Would it have killed immersion if I went with 3xAC2 + 1 Gauss Rifle? Instead, the best right now is 4xUAC5 or 4xAC10/LBx10.

This.

mad kat, on 05 January 2020 - 03:29 PM, said:

The Wolfhound in MW5' is a prime example of having zero distinction between variants.

Wolfhound is a prime example.
Since the first Wolfhounds to exist were made using the Cyclops Industries manufactured Cyclops Eye Large Laser/PPC hybrid, which is noteworthy to be smaller than the average large laser (and a barely any play in its 450 meter range limit), it stands to reason that the Wolfhound 1 would therefore have a medium slot in the right arm during their initial production run. [Battletech: Battlepack Four.]
(Though Catalyst has changed this to say that Wolfhound-1 and 1-A models are sporting a regular Setana Large Laser, I like FASA's version, and see it as the Wolfhound 1-A "refit" getting the Setana, and thus the large slot).

The 1-A, aside from the change in which large laser is in use (if you go by the original FASA version before Catalyst's TRO 3039), drops a medium laser for an additional heatsink. But with the medium slot on one and large slot on the other, it works out.
The 1-B is also another field refit, in which a single medium laser is switched from facing backwards to facing forward to join the other two. I'm not certain how I might distinguish this one, but it stands to reason having all 3 slots face forward plus a large slot might be enough. Alternatively, could potentially add a slot to the arm or something.

Any ideas?

I know the Catapults were really disappointing.
It's a shame that we couldn't have the sub-variant difference, such as the stilt-leg

and shunt-leg.


The canonical reason for the long-legged 12-meter tall versions is for use in mountainous- and canyon-dominated regions, to help it find and nail its targets while the much shorter (supposedly 8-to-9 meter tall) shunt-legged Catapult is more for flatlands, urban areas, and places where long legs would be more of a liability than an asset.

[FRAGTAST1C]

I think that if PGI doesn't rework hardpoints, they should give quirks like how it was back in the day of MWO. Now, I wasn't around at that time but I hear people talking about Dragon having 50% laser quirk or something and Centurion having a godly AC20 quirk and so on. Those quirks were reduced to what we have now. Maybe for MW5, give those godly quirks to some variants.

[Koniving]

I don't think PGI's going to rework the hardpoints. They made conscious decisions to set the hardpoints as they did.
The 3D models are also somewhat unique from MWO, due to the numerous asset-swaps that happen to show damage which are far more plenty than MWO's. (Seems this is also why we lost the missile doors).

But nothing says that we can't. Already people have swapped and replaced icons, created save game editors, and began modifying the game without the proper tools. For example, using regular Unreal Engine I figured out how to do charge-up weaponry (useful for a few things) and how to make a mortar that allows me to aim directly at a destination and fire.

I'm now working on whether to set it to include an additional 50 meters, or a way for a player to set a range beyond the targeted point for the Mech Mortar to be used for indirect fire.
With some modifications of course, I could then insert them as mechanics for Mech Mortars and such.

(One thought on setting range is combining the two mechanics, which works fairly okay by how long you hold it indicating how far past the point you aim at you want the mortar to overshoot.)

But I wanna keep charge mechanics to a minimum to keep them more unique when encountered for special weaponry.

[Koniving]

FRAGTAST1C, on 05 January 2020 - 08:04 PM, said:

I think that if PGI doesn't rework hardpoints, they should give quirks like how it was back in the day of MWO. Now, I wasn't around at that time but I hear people talking about Dragon having 50% laser quirk or something and Centurion having a godly AC20 quirk and so on. Those quirks were reduced to what we have now. Maybe for MW5, give those godly quirks to some variants.

The quirks were really ridiculous at one point.

What's funny, is originally they were made for the Clan omnimechs to give you a reason to favor fewer hardpoints over more, so a single energy hardpoint over 3 got quite a boost, and 3 was neutral but another limb 6 was penalized slightly. Etc.). Naturally, this got dropped pretty quickly in favor of buff everything (but not 50+% which allowed for absolutely insane meta-****ing).

It's true that some aspects for each mech should have differences in set stats, for example the Highlander models supposedly had slightly different heights and flexibility between the 732, 732b (high quality actuators) and 733 (different height, downgraded weaponry brands to make it more cost-effective).

Another good example that I'm doing for the mod is the two versions of the Hunchback 4-series. (Komiyaba Type VII [TRO 2750/3025] and the Crucis Mark V [TRO 3039, 3050]). Their speeds are slightly different, the Crucis is taller with more room inside for things like double heatsinks and XL engines (not that we can install XL engines on our own apparently thanks to PGI's design choices). While most 4-series variants made from the Komiyaba Type VII are refit kits, the Crucis variants are made right off the factory line (making them newer, more responsive than their ancient-and-dying brethren). Crucis versions come stock with newer laser weaponry, but use the inferior Kali-Yama Big Bore (120mm) while the few 4G models using the Komiyaba Type VII chassis sported one of the largest AC/20s in the IS, comparable only to the Defiance Mech Hunter (180mm) in the Atlas or the largest caliber in the Inner Sphere, the Chemjet Gun.

(Which reminds me, the fact that the chemjet gun and what must be the Crusher [Quickscell the tier 0 burst fire AC/20] are the two weakest AC/20s bugs the **** out of me. They put the 40mm Pontiac 100 as tier 3 or so in the single shot, when every single reference to it spouts 100-shot [or several hundred shot, and it's always described as firing 'streams']... When you map out what weapons they opted for versus canonical weapons, it is really baffling.. The ultimate tier 5 AC/20 single shot in Mw5 Mercs is either 100 or 120mm depending on the novel you dig it out from. I could go on for a small novella about the insanity, but I'll spare ya. Though sometime this week I'll make a list of MW5's weapon variants versus canonical info.)

[Hawk_eye]

I am quite baffled at what I read in this thread, but I guess everyone likes something different.

I absolutely _love_ the size-restricted hard-point system of MW5.

Granted, BattleTech (the whole IP) has always been about the feeling of the game for me. Games that _felt_ true to the universe, I loved, games that didn't (looking at you, MechAssault), didn't and MW5s system feels very much true to the universe (definitely true to my head-canon), where a small merc unit most definitely is not able to modify it's mechs willy-nilly.

And before anyone says: "But Hawkeye, you can restrict yourself to such a system and still have the option for those who want to use it"
No you can't!
Any option, that allows a player to increase the power of his mechs/pilots/whatever would necessitate an increase in power for the OPFOR - and anyone not using said option would be truly and thoroughly F-ed.

P.s. I could agree with _one_ change in the current system, and that is that large hard-points can take multiple smaller weapons. Essentially, I'd have only _one_ generic HP type and different size weapons would take up different numbers of those generic HPs, so an AC/20 or Gauss would need 3(4?) HPs, while a small laser would only take 1.

[Yastin]

Hawk_eye, on 05 January 2020 - 11:39 PM, said:

I absolutely _love_ the size-restricted hard-point system of MW5.

Granted, BattleTech (the whole IP) has always been about the feeling of the game for me. Games that _felt_ true to the universe, I loved, games that didn't (looking at you, MechAssault), didn't and MW5s system feels very much true to the universe (definitely true to my head-canon), where a small merc unit most definitely is not able to modify it's mechs willy-nilly.

I absolutely get what you're saying here, and I agree to some extent. The problem I have is that some mechs clearly have spaces to fit weapons and simply have no, or too small of hardpoints, to utilize them. I'm not saying that every variant should have all the possible hardpoints. But not every one needs to have -only ever- the hardpoints that the variant can fit by standard. Like, look at the Vindicator's left arm and tell me that giant housing is only capable of fitting a single small laser. I don't want total anarchy, but your mech-tech can build a new mech out of one that has only one piece of structure remaining. To think they can't rig up a few extra switches and circuits is a bit much... The Annihilator's in the same boat, it can fit multiple ACs on the arms, but not sacrifice quantity for quality and just slap a '20 in? The basic problem I have is that all mechs come with the biggest their slots can handle, leaving no room for 'growth' until you're >halfway through the game, where you get more options more consistently. A problem that's magnified by the AI lancemates, who simply cannot use mechs without topped up armor.

[Hawk_eye]

Yastin, on 06 January 2020 - 12:18 AM, said:

I absolutely get what you're saying here, and I agree to some extent. The problem I have is that some mechs clearly have spaces to fit weapons and simply have no, or too small of hardpoints, to utilize them. I'm not saying that every variant should have all the possible hardpoints. But not every one needs to have -only ever- the hardpoints that the variant can fit by standard. Like, look at the Vindicator's left arm and tell me that giant housing is only capable of fitting a single small laser. I don't want total anarchy, but your mech-tech can build a new mech out of one that has only one piece of structure remaining. To think they can't rig up a few extra switches and circuits is a bit much... The Annihilator's in the same boat, it can fit multiple ACs on the arms, but not sacrifice quantity for quality and just slap a '20 in? The basic problem I have is that all mechs come with the biggest their slots can handle, leaving no room for 'growth' until you're >halfway through the game, where you get more options more consistently. A problem that's magnified by the AI lancemates, who simply cannot use mechs without topped up armor.

That's what I was trying to get at with my P.s.

[Nesutizale]

Bit late, maybe it was allready mentioned...anyway I like the restrictions but would have liked to see an option that when you go to an industrial Hub you can refit your hardpoints and reactor, maybe even run endo or ferro where you couldn't before BUT with some heafty cost attached to it and a very long time for the refit.

Rule could be that you can devide a large slot into two mediums or three light slots or the other way around. Reactors would by normal rules increase/decrease weight and speed.

Changeing the type of slot like from large energy to large ballistic...I am not quite found of as those weapons have very different sizes and demands but its an idea.

Overall it would give players the option to kinda create their personal mech but at a cost that you might as well buy 2-3 stock mechs for it. One would have to see how to balance the modifications out but you, as a small merc, haveing basicly your very personal mech should come at a cost and be something very special that way.

[Gas Guzzler]

mad kat, on 05 January 2020 - 03:29 PM, said:

The Wolfhound in MW5' is a prime example of having zero distinction between variants.

B-b-b-b-but I thought MWO's customization caused zero distinction between variants

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 06 January 2020 - 01:31 PM.

[Yastin]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 January 2020 - 01:31 PM, said:

B-b-b-b-but I thought MWO's customization caused zero distinction between variants

Wait, do people actually say this? Fuggin' amazing...

[FRAGTAST1C]

Yastin, on 06 January 2020 - 04:13 PM, said:

Wait, do people actually say this? Fuggin' amazing...

The problem with comparing MWO to MW5 is that MWO has the ability to turn most mechs into gunboats and has quirks. It is a MP game after all. You need all the variants to be competitive and be able to make the developers some money and still, some variants aren't good. Heck, entire chassis aren't good in some cases.

The thing with MW5 is that the variants are too similar 'cause the restricted size of the hardpoints are identical throughout the chassis. You cannot have a Gauss Rifle on an Annihilator 'cause medium ballistic is the norm across that chassis, for e.g., Same with the Mauler. You can only boat AC2s or bring two AC10/LBx10. Not a single one can carry a big ballistic weapon. Warhammers are the same. Only small ballistics and large energies on the arms.

Edited by FRAGTAST1C, 06 January 2020 - 07:39 PM.