45 replies to this topic

[Ttly]

What, you want everything to be SR-6/Aksum/mixpod DWF-Cs?

Without hardpoint spread/weapon slot sizes/quirks, forcing builds to place their weapons on the arms, most people wouldn't even bother.
Case in point, ANH-1P losing its armor quirk buff down to the arm armor because boob lasers is the only thing that matters on it pretty much telling anyone that wants to bother using the arm ballistic to don't even try.

Edited by Ttly, 09 July 2025 - 09:44 AM.

[martian]

Ttly, on 09 July 2025 - 09:34 AM, said:

What, you want everything to be SR-6/Aksum/mixpod DWF-Cs?

Yeah, this is what KursedVixen wants - but only for his Clan OmniMechs.

He wants all his Clan OmniMechs turned into empty shells without hardpoints, so he can fill them with loadouts as close to the MWO meta as he can devise:

KursedVixen, on 07 July 2025 - 11:19 PM, said:

So why can't we get actual omnimechs without hardpoints? Fixed equipment is cannon but not hardpoints on omnis even inner sphere omnis why can't we have actual omnis does it ruin balance that much to put an AC5 where my CERPPC and a heat sink were????

He is also of that firm opinion that the IS players should get no further IS OmniMechs:

KursedVixen, on 07 July 2025 - 04:03 AM, said:

and the inner sphere doesn't need more omnimechs either....

Check his userbar:


Giving all possible advantages to himself and his Clan OmniMechs, while ensuring that the IS players will get nothing remotely similar, is his idea of "a fun, balanced game".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

KursedVixen, on 09 July 2025 - 01:14 AM, said:

i don't think you have one clue to how modeling works once the intial model work is done it can easily be reused

I don't think you know how modeling works either because they don't model every possible thing it could ever have in the game. They limit it to a set of lore variants and that's it. For example the Timber Wolf A variant existed in the models well before the variant was added to the game, but the Viper F was not modeled when the Viper was added, that was done well after the fact.

You're line about a "single line of code" also tells me you know literally nothing about coding or the process of taking a mech concept to being in a game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 09 July 2025 - 02:20 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 02:19 PM, said:

They don't model every possible thing it could ever have in the game.

I mean, AC Locust says hi.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 02:19 PM, said:

You're line about a "single line of code" also tells me you know literally nothing about coding or the process of taking a mech concept to being in a game.

Yep. I always here these "lines of code" from people wanting me to change my mods as if they know modding, but has to ask me to do it for them.

[Drenzul]

Tiy0s, on 09 July 2025 - 06:49 AM, said:

Agree with pretty much everything you said.
As an actual software engineer, its never 'just 1 line of code' even when the code change is just 1 line

Personally I've love to see Mechwarrior free from the tight embrace of BT so much.

You can keep the spirit of BT, without having to use exactly the same rules, some of which just don't translate that well to FPS games but have been kinda wedged in.

Weapon damage and ammo amounts in particular don't relate back too well to TT since 1 shot in TT isn't 1 shot, its 1 round of firing. Many other bits in TT are made that way just to simply the maths and could be done far better with the computer doing the maths for us.

Thing that always annoys me, why does my Piranha and my Stone Rhino have the same number of crit slots despite well... the Piranha barely is the size of a SR's leg lol.

I'd like to see sized hard-points more. I can't remember the game they were in but they allowed the mechs to have more hard-points without been overkill. Some mechs do seem to be squeezing very large weapons in places they probably shouldn't fit, while allowing enough space for variations.

[The6thMessenger]

martian, on 09 July 2025 - 09:56 AM, said:

"a fun, balanced game".

X

Drenzul, on 09 July 2025 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'd like to see sized hard-points more. I can't remember the game they were in but they allowed the mechs to have more hard-points without been overkill. Some mechs do seem to be squeezing very large weapons in places they probably shouldn't fit, while allowing enough space for variations.

That's MW4. Also MW5.

MW5 is bad design tho, it's like the worst implementation of the concept of sized hardpoints. It's just hardpoints that can only accept a size of weapon.

MW4 was the best, because if you use smaller sized weapons, you can put more. An AC20 is at 3 slots, but you can change it to 3 AC5s if you want -- or 3 Machine-Guns. Problem with MGs here is that, the MGs are pretty weak and is only powerful in numbers, and so it's only the boats that excel using MGs. With that kind of Sized Hardpoints, any mech could be an MG boat and effectively employ MGs.

Of course detractors would say that actual MG Boat mechs like Piranha would lose it's niche, yeah, but MG would be useful.

BlueDevilspawn, on 08 July 2025 - 08:20 AM, said:

Funnily, I thought MW5 Clans was already quite the power fantasy. FWIW, it's possible to beat Trueborn difficulty with stock mechs. No need for ERML stacking like MW2, I think we're beyond that.

I haven't played it. Funds are tight at the moment.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2025 - 03:46 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

-double post-

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2025 - 03:29 PM.

[a 5 year old with an Uzi]

Samey gunbags != fun or interesting

Working within constraints to a reasonable degree = fun and interesting

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2025 - 03:22 PM, said:

I mean, AC Locust says hi.

Modeling all possible options for a single hardpoint is very different from 2-12 different hardpoints but please continue with strawmen. You could argue that yes, that should always be done up front but to my earlier point about abominations and Tiy0s's point about them being ugly, that's kinda the problem. There's something to be said that lights also have to boat more numerous guns or have massive RoF-esque quirks to be useful which stems from issues with just how guns were designed in TT (SL being 0.5, ML being 1, and then LL for some reason being 4-5 tons, the incongruity kills me sometimes).

tl;dr I don't blame them for doing what they did with MW5, it wasn't the time to reinvent the wheel, just deliver the nostalgia. However after this cycle of MW5 and MWO, I think it's pretty clear if they do another, they probably ought to redesign things.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 09 July 2025 - 06:31 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 06:22 PM, said:

Modeling all possible options for a single hardpoint is very different from 2-12 different hardpoints but please continue with strawmen.

It's called consistency, meaning I can hold you on account to the logic of what you said. So in this case, the call of strawman, is the strawman.

Maybe, be careful of what you say, especially when you accuse others of not knowing things, when you yourself come short.

And given how they're modelling these weapon prefabs, when you can't even reasonably save the mech loadout, even if it fits, isn't reassuring of their philosophy, nor your idea of them is an adequate description of theirs.

I can't even believe how it was claimed that, "they have standards", and "they model the weapon", when they recycle a lot of the prefabs in the wrong place like the Rifles -- why aren't the rifles modeled? We have HAGs, but why do they still use the same Gauss barrel? MRMs and LRMs share basically the same mesh -- the missile hardpoints, for something like SRM4s are just LRM5s with blocked off ports. Are you for real?

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 06:22 PM, said:

You could argue that yes, that should always be done up front but to my earlier point about abominations and Tiy0s's point about them being ugly, that's kinda the problem.

Well, I don't disagree with their idea of what appeals to them, and often modders have to take it on their own hands to do what they weren't willing able-to, and make do -- such as say the Catapult arm on the Urbie, for a proper arrow-4 platform.

But, I do see the problem of the mentality of "just let modders fix it", I chastise Bethesda for it -- I will chastise PGI for it too. The lot of us just wants to play the game, so maybe these hoopla isn't conducive to that.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 06:22 PM, said:

There's something to be said that lights also have to boat more numerous guns or have massive RoF-esque quirks to be useful which stems from issues with just how guns were designed in TT (SL being 0.5, ML being 1, and then LL for some reason being 4-5 tons, the incongruity kills me sometimes).

I agree, and that's why I hold the MW4 sized hardpoint as the gold-standard, and I find it a shame how they prioritize appearances, over gameplay, which should be the focus given that it's a game.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 06:22 PM, said:

I don't blame them for doing what they did with MW5, it wasn't the time to reinvent the wheel, just deliver the nostalgia.

I do. It is their hands, their choices, they could have done better but didn't -- and the only choice I have is whether I participate or not. So yeah, they have the power, they get the blame.

Leeway for constraints, ok sure, but when the entire philosophy is flawed and they keep doing it, then there should be hell to pay.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 09 July 2025 - 06:22 PM, said:

However after this cycle of MW5 and MWO, I think it's pretty clear if they do another, they probably ought to redesign things.

Ok.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2025 - 10:00 PM.

[Drenzul]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2025 - 03:24 PM, said:

X



That's MW4. Also MW5.

MW5 is bad design tho, it's like the worst implementation of the concept of sized hardpoints. It's just hardpoints that can only accept a size of weapon.

MW4 was the best, because if you use smaller sized weapons, you can put more. An AC20 is at 3 slots, but you can change it to 3 AC5s if you want -- or 3 Machine-Guns. Problem with MGs here is that, the MGs are pretty weak and is only powerful in numbers, and so it's only the boats that excel using MGs. With that kind of Sized Hardpoints, any mech could be an MG boat and effectively employ MGs.

Of course detractors would say that actual MG Boat mechs like Piranha would lose it's niche, yeah, but MG would be useful.



I haven't played it. Funds are tight at the moment.

Yes I agree, if you have a large hard-point, you should be able to put multiple smaller weapons in it.

Can tinker with it to work better.

[KursedVixen]

Drenzul, on 10 July 2025 - 12:12 AM, said:

Yes I agree, if you have a large hard-point, you should be able to put multiple smaller weapons in it.

Can tinker with it to work better.

I'm surprized there's not a mod to change that.... or make them actual omnis....

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 10 July 2025 - 12:49 AM, said:

I'm surprized there's not a mod to change that.... or make them actual omnis....

There WAS: https://steamcommuni.../?id=2859365611

Of course if you're using YAML with an unlocked Mechlab, this is different.

[Ilfi]

Ahh, gunbags. Back in MechWarrior 3, I for one LOVED piloting my perma-flight quad DJJ MASC XL400 12 Medium Laser Strider, barreling across the map at over 260 kp/h and one-shotting everything I could point at. Good times.

Way too late to be asking for this kind of thing, and it's an incredibly bad idea for reasons that should be obvious (everyone picks the walking pencil and puts the most meta weapon on it 8 to 16 times), but it's a fun thought experiment.

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2025 - 12:56 AM, said:

There WAS: https://steamcommuni.../?id=2859365611

Of course if you're using YAML with an unlocked Mechlab, this is different.

i stand corrected

but i meant for the clan games. which one probably exist anyway.

Edited by KursedVixen, 10 July 2025 - 03:31 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2025 - 09:49 PM, said:

It's called consistency, meaning I can hold you on account to the logic of what you said.

Wat. "Consistency" doesn't explain anything and at this point I just have to assume you are being deliberately obtuse or just stupid.

There's a big difference between modelling all possible weapons and/or mounts for 2 hardpoints, and 10, per section. Especially if you don't know if it will ever be used (keeping in mind that I don't think they've ever modified hardpoints after release). Have you heard of the term "YAGNI"?

MWO has no engineering support so using HAGs/etc as an example of lack of standards is a bit of a misleading thing as MWO isn't the flagship title anymore and models being a blocker for adding things to a pretty dead game seems pretty silly given it would only be used for MWO.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 10 July 2025 - 07:10 AM.

[LordNothing]

im convinced there is a method to do it. something i want to use in my own game (my game is a space sim but il use bt jargon and mechified terms so it makes sense). its a simple problem, given an arbitrary build plan based on a set of rules and an arbitrary chassis, populate the chassis in externally visible weapon models in a procedural way that makes sense, is aesthetically pleasing, and does not require frequent asset updates.

start with the base layer, a model of a mech for example. this is going to be artist generated so the model contains no information about what goes where.

on top of that you have an interface layer. weapon hardpoints are of different types as in bt, so you can use that to abstract the interface layer greatly. this layer has to be rigged for each model so it looks right. missile racks are mostly the same, only missile type varies and is ultimately just an array of tubes. interface geometry in that case is either an indentation in the chassis to fit the weapon model or maybe a protruding set of armor plates to cover a wide array of different weapon models that fit the profile. ballistics and ppcs all seem to have a cylindrical profile and a single bit of interface geometry can tie it into the exact same spot as the missile launcher, perhaps a cooling jacket or a recoil slide, again catering to a long list of different weapons that fit in the shrouding. this gives the artist a lot of agency on how they can do them. the interface layer contains positional information (xform for the weapon model), renderable geometry and hitboxes (my game will let you shoot weapons off). they are stored as optional geometry in the model file and can be toggled based on the loadout.

with the weapon models being the layer on top of that, which are in external model files and can be scaled with weapon size (my hardpoints are sized but not typed, which is backwards from what mwo does) allowing smart asset reuse. with the civil war patch i noticed a lot of dev time was going into retrofitting mech models to use the new geometry. i feel like this closed down a monetization avenue of selling weapon packs. so i made sure my engine had an easy way to procedural append models to an object hierarchy so it could be handled at load time rather than manually in the studio. a ship is a lot less difficult to rig than a mech since it doesn't require as much in terms of animation rigging (mostly just turrets and thrusters, i might also have centrifuges since im going for a hard sci-fi sim, and it makes ships less boring looking), but there is no reason it cant work in a mech game. this is of course an engine limitation, so if your engine doesnt have that feature and you cant add it you are sol. i just made sure mine did (most of this is just a plan but ive implemented this low level feature already).

so to bring it all together you look at the build configuration, see what weapons are used where. look up the interface model type from the weapon config and enable that in the base model. then you transform and append all the weapon models with the transform applied to the interface geometry. i can adjust my build rules to better fit the system, but mwo inherited its build rules partly from battetech, which never really considered this entire problem. this is what happens when you inherit wealth.

anyway i figure you can break your possible hardpoints down into a hierarchical structure. install a big enough weapon and you block a bunch of slots. so if you have a big interface model, you can replace it with a different one with multiple slots. if you break the build ladder for each component into 2s, 3s or 4s (anything the available slots minus fixed equipment is divisible by). each division represented by a different interface model and each model can be further subdivided into sub-interface model. 2s and 3s can be subdivided into 1s, 4s can be subdivided into 2s and again into ones, or a 2 and a 1 accommodating two different sizes. generally the more hardpoints a section has, the more granular it needs to be (the li-dok-to for example).

mwo mostly does this in a way, but without the ability to append external geometry. id rather have better looking external models than proper omnis though. but a big weapon, or strip a component with a lot of hardpoints leads to ugly results. some hardpoints look wrong if you dont put a weapon in them. i think we have most of the lore weapons and anything we dont have would either be redundant (streak lrms or er pulse) or wouldnt have the required mechanics (charging capped ppcs or vgls/mortars), or just would be pointless (rocket launchers). so the need to make it easier to add weapons is no longer there.

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2025 - 12:56 AM, said:

There WAS: https://steamcommuni.../?id=2859365611

Of course if you're using YAML with an unlocked Mechlab, this is different.

only problem i have is the vr warrior mod likes to break all the fun mods.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 July 2025 - 12:45 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 06:40 AM, said:

Wat. "Consistency" doesn't explain anything

No, it explained that you're wrong.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 06:40 AM, said:

at this point I just have to assume you are being deliberately obtuse or just stupid.

Well, honestly, I don't care for your opinion of me, like I hold you an authority.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 06:40 AM, said:

There's a big difference between modelling all possible weapons and/or mounts for 2 hardpoints, and 10, per section. Especially if you don't know if it will ever be used (keeping in mind that I don't think they've ever modified hardpoints after release). Have you heard of the term "YAGNI"?

Have you heard, "It's better to have it when you don't need it, than not have it when you need it?". See you aren't just coding things, you are making a modular mech, that the game sets an expectation that people can do a lot of things with. This is how they can put an AC10 to a locust arm.

Modularity of mesh opens up to many other variants, that people would like to have. In MW5 Modding alone, people are getting freaky with variants.

Also they updated Timberwolf SRM hardpoints.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 06:40 AM, said:

MWO has no engineering support so using HAGs/etc as an example of lack of standards is a bit of a misleading thing as MWO isn't the flagship title anymore and models being a blocker for adding things to a pretty dead game seems pretty silly given it would only be used for MWO.

Does MW5 has no engineering support? Because Rifles as I listed, were there, and they just recycle AC parts.

I didn't say "lack of standards" by the way, so the only strawmanning here is you. I questioned their standards, being they are, just like you, isn't being consistent.

And you know what, sure, MWO has no engineering. So maybe it's no longer a space that needs adherence to said standard, and should finally just go sockets.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 July 2025 - 04:12 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2025 - 03:53 PM, said:

No, it explained that you're wrong.

Sureeeee........

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2025 - 03:53 PM, said:

Have you heard, "It's better to have it when you don't need it, than not have it when you need it?". See you aren't just coding things, you are making a modular mech, that the game sets an expectation that people can do a lot of things with.

Yes, but like Lord said, there wasn't much need after a while. They made the decision to never add/remove hardpoints early on so only when they needed a new variant did they need to do anything. They made choices with the constraints they had and hindsight is almost always 20/20 for armchair people like you. Even modders have big benefits of not having to deal with the same constraints as a traditional development team, whether it be standards you don't agree with or resource constraints. TL;DR, it's really easy to judge from the outside when you aren't on the inside, regardless of whatever knowledge you have of modding which is a completely different environment and shouldn't exactly be held up like you are. Keeping in mind, some of those possibilities you mentioned are either incredibly broken or incredibly ugly. It's cool that it's possible, but maybe not relevant for the base game.

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2025 - 03:53 PM, said:

And you know what, sure, MWO has no engineering. So maybe it's no longer a space that needs adherence to said standard, and should finally just go sockets.

Yes, I'm sure Tiyos will get right on going to sockets with zero engineering.....again, it's like you've never worked under an actual engineering team (software or otherwise) and dealt with actual constraints. That or think that you shouldn't ever have any tech debt.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 10 July 2025 - 05:13 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 04:57 PM, said:

Sureeeee........

The beauty of facts is that it's correct, regardless of what you think.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 04:57 PM, said:

TL;DR, it's really easy to judge from the outside when you aren't on the inside, regardless of whatever knowledge you have of modding which is a completely different environment and shouldn't exactly be held up like you are. Keeping in mind, some of those possibilities you mentioned are either incredibly broken or incredibly ugly. It's cool that it's possible, but maybe not relevant for the base game.

"regardless of whatever knowledge you have of modding"

Yeah, but it's more than being a basic consumer. The lot of devs started in homebrewing, jury-rigged stuff, even at the beginning of Gaming as a whole. Look at how that turned out.

Meanwhile the modding scene:

Spoiler

> Mad-Cat - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/621
> Vulture - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/626
> Thor - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/757
> Loki - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/765
> Vulture II - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/921
> Blood Asp - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/920
> Marauder - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/775
> Argus - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/882
> Warhawk - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/932
> Uziel - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/942
> Chimera - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/913
> Hollander - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/883
> Storm Crow - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/952
> Fafnir - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/976
> Nova Cat - https://www.nexusmod...aries/mods/1014
> Bushwacker - https://www.nexusmod...aries/mods/1001
> Kit Fox - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/924
> Catapult - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/916
> Warhammer - https://www.nexusmod...aries/mods/1077
> Cauldron-Born - https://www.nexusmod...aries/mods/1094
> Raven - https://www.nexusmod...naries/mods/971
> Daishi - https://www.nexusmod...aries/mods/1190
> Gladiator - https://www.nexusmod...aries/mods/1046

And that's just the mods I have the patience to point out.

The only leeway I can give you is the difficulty of business-decisions -- that even if it's technically possible, it is not by the issue of contraints which I was open to begin with.

But like I said with consistency, that puts things into question especially when the contention was when it's technically possible, and they were at the time doing it, yet here you are retreating to "business-decision" defense.

Your position is everywhere, and it's almost like you're saying just anything to "win".

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 04:57 PM, said:

Yes, I'm sure Tiyos will get right on going to sockets with zero engineering.....again,

Or kitbashing. Would be acceptable to me.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 10 July 2025 - 04:57 PM, said:

it's like you've never worked under an actual engineering team (software or otherwise) and dealt with actual constraints. That or think that you shouldn't ever have any tech debt.

Irrelevant. :3