103 replies to this topic

[Raymacz]

At first try, I didn't really like the hardpoint restrictions but later realized that its the way it should be.

That's what mech VARIANTS are designed for, choosing what fits you best & making the game more exciting. If you can fully customize your mech without hardpoint restrictions then its unrealistic & laughable. Imagine an 3-AC20s mounted to your head or maybe placing it all on your right hand. How can your mech walk (besides looking like a clown)? .

I like the way it is designed right now w/ hardpoint restrictions for certain weapons, energy, ballistics or missile.... Cheers to the MWO game designers..

[RAM]

Alex Wolfe, on 05 August 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

MW3 and below were "everything-is-omni".

False. MW1 had no customization whatsoever.

El Death Smurf, on 05 August 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

anailiators with 4lbx20 in its arms.

Under the MWO system this would actually be a valid config – not that we have the Annihilator yet, but here is hoping!

[To be clear, the ACs would not all fit in the arms, but rather mirror the ANH’s proper loadout: both arms & side torsos]


RAM
ELH

edit - clarification

Edited by RAM, 13 September 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[River Walker]

I say most of you are blowing the NDA. This is not the Beta forum and all of you are posting thing that should only be posted in the Beta forum.
So much for the NDA

[Strum Wealh]

RAM, on 11 September 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

El Death Smurf, on 05 August 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

anailiators with 4lbx20 in its arms

Under the MWO system this would actually be a valid config – not that we have the Annihilator yet, but here is hoping!

Actually... no, it would not be a valid config.

Canonically, each arm (and each side-torso) has only 12 criticals (with only 8-10 being available for weapons and equipment, depending on whether the lower-arm and hand actuators are present) - a pattern MWO seems to be following (based on the images released to/by gaming sites like IGN):




Each IS LB 20-X (which isn't available until 3058) takes up 11 criticals/alots.
Each Clan LB 20-X takes up 9 criticals/slots.

Short of invoking the TT's rules regarding the ability to split certain heavy weapons (the -20 ACs and the HGR), there is no way to get even a single IS-built LB 20-X into a BattleMech's arm, or do so with more than one Clan-built LB 20-X.

[PropagandaWar]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Maybe im being misunderstood. What my point is for example as long as i have enough tonnage available and open slots i can configure on the same rules. for example... I can take an atlas drop down the engine or some of the heat sinks off and put 4 lrm 20's on a atlas. put 2 in left torso and 2 in right torso as long as i have the tonnage and space to do it. I mean that only seams legal i should be able to do that. or a madcat for example: drop the engine to a lower speed and lower tonnage and put 4 ppcs and some extra heat sincs.

I dont think this game is intended to be an arcade game. You are going back to "One chassis of each class". It's just stupid. Locked in ballistic HP is for ballistics not LRM's. Do you see Sherman Tanks putting Missle racks in place of it's cannon? Omni Mechs are the only ones capable of such and these aren't Omni. The other annoying thing about conversations like this is look at all the FPS games out there. What gear do you get? Yeah a Riflle, pistol maybe a rocket launcher. I want them to keep creating mechs with flavor and diversity and hopefully not give in to people like you who think you should be able to put whatever where ever. I also dont want to see PPC's spewing forth it's hate out of weee laser holes intended for small lasers. This game should be as legit as possible. Let Hawken be for the fans that think Go Bots is better than Transformers ;P

[Ragnar Ironarm]

I hear hard points should be changed... o wait. Some Mechs are not designed to carry some things.

But hey who am I to care.

This game is great and it is still in closed beta. So suck it up, man up, and deal with it.

[Verdic Mckenna]

When someone of intelligence speaks, have the wisdom to listen. +1 Orzorn.

Orzorn, on 05 August 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

The very fact that the Battletech universe makes it a point to have a distinction between normal mechs and omnimechs means a hardpoint system is basically already in the lore.

[Kaine Vulpayne]

Metatron, on 05 August 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Agree and then the game would be so Boring with a mech covered in small Lazors moving at 90kph.

This describes exactly how MW3 was played in MP at the time I was around.
Medium sized Mechs with speed well over 100 kph, cramped up with small laz0rs and nothing else, being able to destroy a mech's leg with one hit.
And the oh so clever tactic was to charge on each other, entering the circle of death within small laz0r range and shooting at each others legs, withe the one who one-hitted the other's leg first, being the victor. There was no counter to that, even heavy lrm boats had no chance because the speed of the laz0r boats. Sniping with gauss was to difficult. So everyone used that one freak design.

That might have been all well according to the TT rules. But in a simulation game it was just this: Utterly stupid and boring!
I never played the TT, but I wonder if THIS were the common TT rules, then what advantage would omni mechs have had?

So what MW4 (actually iirc it was used already in MechCmdr) did, was actually a good thing: it gave the various mech designs a distinctive feel and a reason to exist at all. Also it gave opportunities for tactial player skills, as knowing the opponents mechs customization options gave you a hint of what can be expected and thus helped shaping your tactics before he even fired. In MW2 and 3 designs were completely arbitrary
Also it made more sense from how the novels tell us, how Mechs are supposed to work, especially IS Mechs.

Metatron, on 05 August 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I am thinking we should be happy there IS customization at all. We COULD be stuck with stock / standard variants ONLY.

THIS!

Edited by Kaine Vulpayne, 12 September 2012 - 12:45 AM.

[Steel Spectre]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Also the the fact that you have only certain weapons you can put in certain locations is limiting your configurations.

Yes, exactly. That's the point.

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

But to be limited the amout of weapons you can setup to each location due to that type is completely pointless.

Not at all.

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

as long as you have the slots available in that location there should be no restrictions to how many weapons you have setup to that arm or location on the mech.

What you're asking for is to make every mech essentially into an omnimech.

One of the main weaknesses of Inner Sphere designs is that mechs are designed as an integrated whole, weapon systems included, which means they can't be swapped out all willy-nilly like an omnimech's pods. When you customize an Inner Sphere design, you're using existing armor attachment points and integrated heat sinks, spaces designed for particular weapons (sometimes from a particular manufacturer), and leveraging specifically designed ammo feed and storage bins, then jury-rigging them to work with improvised weapon load-outs. The further those are from the original design the more difficult it becomes to wedge them into the armor shell and make it work. More drastic changes would require alterations to the mech's chassis -- something that is infeasible to do in your average mech lab.

Your average mercenary simply does not have the c-bills or the engineering, R&D, and construction resources to drastically alter mechs or build entirely new designs.

[Steel Spectre]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Im just use to playing the game as it was meant to be played and can drop the engine and give 4 ppc's then i feel that i should have the same priviledge here.

What makes you think that that's the game "as it was meant to be played"? If anything, reading through the MechWarrior rules and details on the setting, or even just TRO descriptions, should convince you that Inner Sphere mechs were NOT meant to be played that way. Every single mech is like a Formula One car, purpose-built to work with the equipment it has. You can't just pop the motor out of an F1 car and slap in a Ford V-8, the engine is integrated into the chassis in terms of cooling, and weight balance, and even structurally. That's why mechs underwent factory re-designs just to pop in a couple new weapons or upgrade the engine.

[Adrienne Vorton]

in fact there was no customization in classic battletech...you COULD use the CONSTRUCTION rules to customize mechs, if your playergroup wanted to have something like that... but it was CONSTRUCTION: how to build a mech...not customization in the first place...

our GM let us switch a weapon from time to time, but that took lots of work and time from our poor techs...

there was clearly no "you can slam in everything everywhere as you want" for one simple reason... a chassis was built for a certain setup, and a variant needed many changes in the construction process of a factory... puttin a PPC into the launcherspot of a Cat C1? rip off the launcher, its mounts, change the electronics, use another targeting computer that is for energy weapons instead of missles, and i guess some changes in the internal structure of the mech have to be done as well... and finally, built in a mount for the PPC...

and thats with a mech which has the weaponry OUTSIDE... not to mentions what has to be done, to rip a LRM out of an atlas and slam an AC into it... poor techs^^

BUT i have to say, i like the system like it is now, it´s restricted, but leaves some room for the fun of testing some setups...

restricting to weapon categories is okay with me

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 12 September 2012 - 02:16 AM.

[Nathanel Ghent]

Adrienne Vorton is absolutely right.
The TT has CONSTRUCTION-rules and that's it. Customized Mechs are mostly seen in the Periphery or with Pirates, since they often don't have the equipment to replace destroyed weaponry.

The OmniMechs we know all have one thing in common: they are using modules.
Therefore, according to TT rules, you can replace a module with another one within a specific amount of time (I think it was 1 module in 30 minutes).

To sum it up: We are already allowed to do more with our mechs than the TT rules would.

[Rambo Calrissian]

I think a hardpoint system makes sense somehow, but not necessarily the way it's implemented.

Take the Catapult CPLT-K2 (that one with those big PPCs) as an example:
It has two big guns in its arms ... still those guns can only be Energy Weapons. Even small lasers, which would be a ridiculous choice for those large pipes ... but no AC, Gauss, etc. (which would "fit" those big arms much better).
On the other side, you can replace those tiny Machine Guns in the Side Torsos with Gauss, AC20, etc., but not with small/medium lasers.

I would prefer a system, which makes more (logical) sense:
Being able to replace big weapons with big weapons (or multiple smaller ones), and small weapons with small weapons.
I think a system like that would be just as balanced, but would actually "feel" better (at least to me).

Or maybe small stuff like Machine Guns, smaller ACs, Lasers, could be mounted anywhere (as long as there isn't a missle launcher, which takes up all the space), while big guns and rockets need special hardpoints to carry them.

Rockets should stay rockets, since those launchers differ a lot from ballistic and energy weapons. I can see, why you'd need special missle launcher hardpoints for them.

[Hythos]

Rambo Calrissian, on 12 September 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Or maybe small stuff like Machine Guns, smaller ACs, Lasers, could be mounted anywhere (as long as there isn't a missle launcher, which takes up all the space), while big guns and rockets need special hardpoints to carry them.

Rockets should stay rockets, since those launchers differ a lot from ballistic and energy weapons. I can see, why you'd need special missle launcher hardpoints for them.

What about... stuffing the 6 rocket-tubes of an SRM-6 with Small Lasers? It's essentially the same weight, and about the same size - just takes a bit larger conduits.
While *I* would advocate the FULL customization and allowance of mounting weaponry anywhere its criticals would fit... the use of a hard-point system is fair.
Having a 100T with 30 smalls and 10 med's w/16x2HS's using a 400XL AND Tripple-Strength Myomer makes for quite the fire-blossom (and IS easily possible in Battletech), having an ability to melt a single mech, or to PUNT a poor little Commando into orbit ... regardless of how fun it would be, it isn't exactly fair (yet). That's a raw 130dmg without retaining ANY heat. (Only greater amount of damage could be dealt by using two hatchets and all the SM's in the torsos...)

[RAM]

Strum Wealh, on 11 September 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

RAM, on 11 September 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

El Death Smurf, on 05 August 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

anailiators with 4lbx20 in its arms.

Under the MWO system this would actually be a valid config – not that we have the Annihilator yet, but here is hoping!

Actually... no, it would not be a valid config.
Canonically, each arm (and each side-torso) has only 12 criticals (with only 8-10 being available for weapons and equipment, depending on whether the lower-arm and hand actuators are present) - a pattern MWO seems to be following (based on the images released to/by gaming sites like IGN):

Each IS LB 20-X (which isn't available until 3058) takes up 11 criticals/alots.
Each Clan LB 20-X takes up 9 criticals/slots.

Short of invoking the TT's rules regarding the ability to split certain heavy weapons (the -20 ACs and the HGR), there is no way to get even a single IS-built LB 20-X into a BattleMech's arm, or do so with more than one Clan-built LB 20-X.

False. As you yourself point out, yes it is. While it would require the addition of both the ANH & Clan tech it would be a valid config. Of course this would be a ways off…

So we are clear, the ANHs mount ACs in each arm & both side torsos providing ample critical space for the Clan LB-20-X.

Although I see now what the confusion is – no, the ACs would not currently all fit in the arms. I took the original post to reference the ANH’s 4 ACs…


RAM
ELH

Edited by RAM, 13 September 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[FuzzyHalibut]

Lawstar, on 05 August 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

...thin[k] about trying to put a 12 cylinder rolls royce engine on a fiat....MAJOR STRUCTURAL REVISIONS...so the system MWO proposes ONLY makes sense with the use of different mech models...otherwise why bother with different models??????

I've seen it. They have pictures of it. The Fiat with a Rolls Royce V12. Its the Fiat G.59
Problem with examples is, you can be wrong by not specifying exactly what you ment by "Fiat" and "Rolls Royce V12"


Back to the OP! Ok, seems you like to place things if you can make room. Fair enough. I will argure that the Hardpoint system makes sence though, by taking it to a modern equivalent. Aircraft!
The modern fighter has a hardpoint system. Its also limited by weight. Lets take the F/A-18C. Sleek, fighter/attack aircraft. Very Omni-Mech like in that aspect. I can have missles and bombs so I can protect my self even. What I can not do, is breach the weight limit of the hardpoints. Thats why I can not have a 2000Lb bomb on the wing tip hardpoint.
I also can not remove one of the two engines (Cause I need just one, right?) and then slap more missles in that slot the engine was. The F/A-18 is very post Clan in its hardpoint system though.

What we have now is Vietnam era planes. They have hardpoints also, but gosh darn it, my A-6 Avenger is not set up to take on a MiG-21. There is even a recorded instance of an A-1 Skyraider killing a MiG-17. That took skill. He didn't switch in missles because his plane could lift its weight in ordanance. He can not equip it due to other limits in the frame and its design.
The IS mechs we are using, are very much limited, like the Skyraider. Its designed for a role, as are the hardpoints. This arm was ment to have a gun, and has all the systems to support a gun. I have a way to feed ammo, and it probably dosn't require the power like an energy weapons uses. That Arm has no feed system, and the power lines for an Energy weapon. Who knows, I may have the room for a bulky LRM-10 in the front, but its designed for an LRM 10, with all the nessisary parts to support an LRM system. I can place an SRM in there, because its not that big of a retool, and probably shair alot of the same parts due to the fact they fire missles, and not a freekin laser strapped to its head... Sorry, had an evil genius moment. I'm better now.


Back to the TL;DR summing up. This is a design aspect taken by the developer, in respect to the canon, to limit you from mounting the biggest guns to the smallest frame, or just turn a huge frame into a walking deathtrap. You have to play in the limits, know your enemies, and make them dance your dance. Just like a Fighter pilot.

Edited by FuzzyHalibut, 13 September 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Raymacz, on 11 September 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

At first try, I didn't really like the hardpoint restrictions but later realized that its the way it should be.

That's what mech VARIANTS are designed for, choosing what fits you best & making the game more exciting. If you can fully customize your mech without hardpoint restrictions then its unrealistic & laughable. Imagine an 3-AC20s mounted to your head or maybe placing it all on your right hand. How can your mech walk (besides looking like a clown)? .

I like the way it is designed right now w/ hardpoint restrictions for certain weapons, energy, ballistics or missile.... Cheers to the MWO game designers..

What happens when you can't get the version you want? I love Battlemasters. however the 3050 Steiner Variant left me wanting. As a Steiner warrior, Am I stuck with a bad variant because of my affiliation? The TRO's are full of variants made by the warriors in the field. I do understand the need for HPs, but also feel restricted by them in many instances. Like not being able to separate the two Ballistic hard points in the Atlas Left torso for instance.

The BattleTech fluff does point that a Mechs configuration can be modified to suit the individual pilot. Hard Points as the are negate that small level of flexibility.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 13 September 2012 - 05:14 AM.

[Bipper]

I am all for more modifications, but I have to cede the fact that allowing full omni- configuration will result in chassis selection simply becoming a cosmetic factor. But, at the other end, really limiting customization has the same effect of reducing variety because people will simply gravitate to the heaviest most efficient chassis. However, I think a compromise could be reached. Here is what I would do.

Allow a "Factory Special Order" option which allows you to set the weapon type allowed on the particular hardpoints. This option by design will have to be extremely expensive and limited to prevent abuse and people running ONLY special order mechs. Once the mech is built and the weapon type hardpoints are set, you can't change them. They become subject to the same limitations as the factory designs. Also, when you want to build another special order, you have to SCRAP the one you have... you can't sell it and recover your money. I'd also limit it to a player only having one or at most two of these. I'd also set up some sort of XP/Level/whatever requirement to hopefully eliminate day one buy ins. Yes I realize that's a relative term given the existence of 24/7 maniacal gamers.

The other thing this would allow is for players to "emulate" their favorite mech. Say they don't put the Battlemaster in. If none of the factory platforms allow for a similar configuration, you do a special order, set the hard points up to mimic the Battlemaster, and poof, you have your Battlemaster. No, it doesn't look like a Battlemaster but you're only going to see the inside of the cockpit 95% of the time anyway.

I know a lot of the anti-omni crowd think this idea is going to lead to the END OF THE WORLD... of Warcraft... I mean Mechwarrior Online. But if implemented with the right checks and balances it shouldn't balloon the use of abusive designs or reduce variety any worse than the currently planned system will.

Edited by Karl Strakor, 13 September 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[Cuddles]

Karl Strakor, on 13 September 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Allow a "Factory Special Order" option which allows you to set the weapon type allowed on the particular hardpoints. This option by design will have to be extremely expensive and limited to prevent abuse and people running ONLY special order mechs.

The trouble with this is that such limits simply can't work. The problem is that there is no limit on money. People have to be able to gain money, because otherwise there would be no point in having it in the first place. But if people can gain money, that means they can gain more money. As long as something is cheap enough that's it's possible for anyone to save up for it, as time passes it's inevitable that the majority of people will eventually do so. You can avoid this in linear single player games that have a finite amount of money ever available, but it's impossible to avoid in a game like this where more money is created every time the game is played. You can slow the process down by having higher costs and putting in money sinks like repairs, but you can't avoid it without removing the posibility for people to make profit at all.

[Hythos]

According to THE rules, large weapons (including the standard AC-20 AND the LBX-20, Arrow-IV systems) can have criticals spread between adjacent locations: side torso+arm.....
The weapon location technically exists from either position - and because the builk of the equipment is NOT the barrel/missle-tube, the designer is free to determine where the actual weapon deployment mechanism (barrel, missle-tube, etc) exists...
Therefor, EX:
an LBX-20 barrel COULD be mounted in an arm**, while having as few as 2 critical slots (considering the remaining 9 critical slots co-occupied a side-torso along side of an XL-engine's shielding, for example).
** Edit: OR even the center torso...

Edited by Hythos, 13 September 2012 - 08:13 AM.