201 replies to this topic

[Hayashi]

Major Tom, on 18 April 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

It all make sense in bizzaro world.

David says: an Awesome has 4 hardpoints for mounting weapons. Which means you can only have up to 4 weapons (H, RA, RT, LT)

Paul says: Pull a PPC and you have 3 critical slots and can mount 1, 2, or 3 medium lasers in that location. Thereby infering that you can, in fact, have 10 medium lasers on an Awesome.

Major Tom asks: I pull the 6 medium lasers from the RT of my Swayback (HBK-4P), that leaves me with 6 hardpoints and 6 critical slots. How many PPCs can I mount?

0 - because I don't have a single hardpoint that can hold 3 critical slots
2 - because I have 2 (or more) hardpoints and 6 energy critical slots
4 - because I have 4 (or more) hardpoints and 12 critical slots (total number in RT)
6 - because I have double critical slots (like the Atlas LRM10+10)
12 - because I have cheat codes

12 - because you have cheat codes.

But if you don't have cheat codes, then you can mount a total of 4 PPCs in the right torso, since:

1. You have 31.5 tons to allocate. And 4 PPCs weigh 28 tons.
2. You have 12 critical slots in the right torso. And 4 PPCs take up 12 critical slots.
3. You have 6 beam hardpoints in the right torso. And 4 PPCs take up only 4 beam hardpoints.

HOWEVER...

1. You wouldn't do that, because that'd mean you'd overheat severely with only 4 single heat sinks available to cool that crap down. 3 PPCs with 11 single heat sinks would be more practical if you intend to hit and run, and 2 PPCs with 18 single heat sinks better if you intend to fire constantly.
2. You wouldn't put all of your PPCs in your Right Torso because if I blast you there with my AC/20, you'll have no other choice but to ram me with your 'Mech. So you would likely put one there, one in the right arm and one in the left arm. Or just one in each arm, and flood the other locations with heat sinks.

[verybad]

Major Tom, on 18 April 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

It all make sense in bizzaro world.

David says: an Awesome has 4 hardpoints for mounting weapons. Which means you can only have up to 4 weapons (H, RA, RT, LT)

Paul says: Pull a PPC and you have 3 critical slots and can mount 1, 2, or 3 medium lasers in that location. Thereby infering that you can, in fact, have 10 medium lasers on an Awesome.

I think that inference is simply everyone hanging on every word that a developer makes and making immediate judgements on released statements. While the Awesome may well have 10 energy hardpoints (heck, it could have 20, or it might have three in one location and 1 in the other locations with weapons, it's NOT definative), his statement didn't seek to define the number of hardpoints on an Awesome, but to clarify how critical slots work. It's likely Hardpoints are not yet fully determined on most or all mechs that are in thie game subject to further balance testing.

Edited by verybad, 18 April 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Garth Erlam]

Hayashi, on 18 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

...However, not every 'Mech should be convertable to XL, since on light 'Mechs with too much critical and too little tonnage anyway it would be FREAKING OVERPOWERED. Not to mention easy coring wouldn't really matter since a double Gauss hit would probably kill it dead anyway, a Light's defense is its agility, not its armour. Again the same thing for endo steel. I'd like to see them keep the option only to certain 'Mechs.

(Personally, without company backing) I disagree - you're glossing over the fact that what used to be 'damage' is now 'incapacitating'. You go from being able to take a couple lucky shots to one. Also saying certain 'Mechs simply can't use EndoSteel is simply unfair to people who choose a 'Mech because they like it. If it comes to the point where peole feel the need to balance individual 'Mechs by banning certain items like endosteel on them, then we'll all chase David with torches for getting us to that point

[Aegis Kleais]

I don't mean to pour salt in a fresh wound, but if you look at all the Q&A's, I think they've all opened up more questions than what were answered. lol.

Sometimes, it just takes playing the game, seeing screenshots/videos in order to get that EUREKA moment and comprehend what text often cannot convey just right.

...
..
.

SO WHERE'S THE FREAKING VIDEOS?!?!?

[Hayashi]

verybad, on 18 April 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I think that inference is simply everyone hanging on every word that a developer makes and making immediate judgements on released statements. While the Awesome may well have 10 energy hardpoints (heck, it could have 20, or it might have three in one location and 1 in the other locations with weapons, it's NOT definative), his statement didn't seek to define the number of hardpoints on an Awesome, but to clarify how critical slots work. It's likely Hardpoints are not yet fully determined on most or all mechs that are in thie game subject to further balance testing.

According to Sarna variants, the Awesome will likely have at least 8 energy hardpoints and 2 missile hardpoints, with no ballistics capabilities. But whether the devs want to add extra beyond the 8/2 is indeed up to them.

Heck, I suspect they'd tweak it during the open beta phase based on how we abuse their 'Mechs.

[AlanEsh]

Garth Erlam, on 18 April 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

(Personally, without company backing) I disagree - you're glossing over the fact that what used to be 'damage' is now 'incapacitating'. You go from being able to take a couple lucky shots to one. Also saying certain 'Mechs simply can't use EndoSteel is simply unfair to people who choose a 'Mech because they like it. If it comes to the point where peole feel the need to balance individual 'Mechs by banning certain items like endosteel on them, then we'll all chase David with torches for getting us to that point

(WITH company backing, just not the company that matters... ) Then the devs should crank out the Endo or XL variants for those mechs for people to further modify in the lab.
/edit -- i'm all for "driving what you like", but at some point they need to give the nod to canon, and a bit of realism. The amount of effort and type of facilities you'd need to swap out your mech's skeleton, or completely rearrange the torsos to go from standard to XL engine, is reallllly stretching things. Factories make new/upgraded models for a reason -- that being your technicians simply can't.

Edited by Angelicon, 18 April 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Hayashi]

Garth Erlam, on 18 April 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

(Personally, without company backing) I disagree - you're glossing over the fact that what used to be 'damage' is now 'incapacitating'. You go from being able to take a couple lucky shots to one. Also saying certain 'Mechs simply can't use EndoSteel is simply unfair to people who choose a 'Mech because they like it. If it comes to the point where peole feel the need to balance individual 'Mechs by banning certain items like endosteel on them, then we'll all chase David with torches for getting us to that point

In that case then please make adding endosteel freaking expensive. ;-) It wouldn't be much relative to the cost of an Atlas, but quite a lot relative to the cost of a Jenner. Its advantage, however, would also be much greater for a Jenner relative to an Atlas, so this balances out perfectly.

Maybe, say, 4 Million C-Bills for adding Endo Steel.

But in ingame currency please, otherwise it'd skew the Lights towards those who can pay real money for Endo steel upgrades, which we wouldn't want now would we...

And hey, if proper understanding of the hardpoint system made it possible to play any style I'd want based on norrmal 'Mechs... but easier if I had omni hardpoints, then you could sell 'Mechs with omni hardpoints for real cash through the ingame store. Because:

1. It's not pay-to-win since I can do the same thing for free, if I plan my Mechlabbing well... therefore it doesn't ruin game balance.
2. It allows those who want to play a particular 'Mech - say, the Timber Wolf, to do so, if they are willing to pay for it, IF the particular 'Mech happened to be an OmniMech.
3. It gives people who pay a very slight strategic advantage since opposing commanders will have to scan them to know exactly what they're packing, whereas I already kind of know what a Catapult has even without needing a scout, but this advantage will be easily nullified by a good scout team, so it doesn't break the game. This creates some incentive for people to pay for it - beyond just plain liking the 'Mech.

[Thomas de Ville]

Thanks for your info

[Sprouticus]

Garth Erlam, on 18 April 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

(Personally, without company backing) I disagree - you're glossing over the fact that what used to be 'damage' is now 'incapacitating'. You go from being able to take a couple lucky shots to one. Also saying certain 'Mechs simply can't use EndoSteel is simply unfair to people who choose a 'Mech because they like it. If it comes to the point where peole feel the need to balance individual 'Mechs by banning certain items like endosteel on them, then we'll all chase David with torches for getting us to that point

Which means that geometry and hardpoints are the only differentiating point between 2 mech of the same class/tonnage. And for variants ONLY the hardpoints are different. In the case of something like the Awesome, variants are almost pointless. You could get by with 2 or maybe 3 variants to represent all of the Awesome variants. And you will end up with mechs with more hardpoints that are simply superior to other variants

Example
Assuming 1 hardpoint per weapon (no extras)
AWS-8Q has 4x Energy hardpoints
AWS-9M (yes, I know it is out of the timeline, this is an exmaple) has 5x energy hardpoints, plus ECM

Now with the current system you could drop 1 HS and put ECM on it like the 9M.
But more important, the 9M is MUCH more flexible because it has the extra hardpoint.

[David Bradley]

Garth Erlam, on 18 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is essentially dead on.

I just want to say that Garth is right about this being more or less right.

Also, regarding some of the other confusion in here about how one weapon gets replaced with two or more, I'll give you this example. Just because a stock Hunchback 4G, fresh out of the Technical Readouts, only has a single Medium Laser in each arm, that doesn't mean that it only has one energy hardpoint in each arm. It could have two energy hardpoints in each arm, allowing the player to put in extra weapons. The default loadout just isn't using all the hardpoints, because it's already at its weight limit. The number of hardpoints are related to the default loadout, but they aren't a one for one copy.

[Jason Phoenix]

Quote

Lets say I take an Awesome, normally with 3 PPCs, 1 small laser. Then I modify it to its maximum theoreitcaly extent, that is to say 10 medium lasers. Will this be possible, or could the hardpoint system further restrict so there's a maximum number of smaller weapons that could replace a larger one to help prevent crazy boating? –CapperDeluxe

[DAVID] The hardpoint system will be related to how many weapons are in the default loadout, and not how many slots those weapons take up.

Hey there guys, thx for the great work and the answear to our question.

I am not sure if I understand correctly the Weapons/Hardpoint restrictions...

Lets just say the Panther (PNT-9R) makes it into the game. It has a PPC and an SRM-4 as its default Loadouts.

So since it has a total of 2 Weapons, does that means I cant remove both the PPC AND the SRM-4 to replace them with 3 Medium Lazers, since that would be going from 2 Weapons to 3 Weapons and therefore going against the MechLab Limitations ?!?

And if that is so, how do you explain that limitation Cannon wise ?!?

Thx again for your time guys.

Edit: I appologise if this has been covered already, I am still reading the huge wall of text covering todays Update lol...

Edited by Jason Phoenix, 18 April 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Hayashi]

Jason Phoenix, on 18 April 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Hey there guys, thx for the great work and the answear to our question.

I am not sure if I understand correctly the Weapons/Hardpoint restrictions...

Lets just say the Panther (PNT-9R) makes it into the game. It has a PPC and an SRM-4 as its default Loadouts.

So since it has a total of 2 Weapons, does that means I cant remove both the PPC AND the SRM-4 to replace them with 3 Medium Lazers, since that would be going from 2 Weapons to 3 Weapons and therefore going against the MechLab Limitations ?!?

And if that is so, how do you explain that limitation Cannon wise ?!?

Thx again for your time guys.

Edit: I appologise if this has been covered already, I am still reading the huge wall of text covering todays Update lol...

If the devs follow Sarna strictly, then no, it would be illegal to put 3 medium lasers. At max its canon variants use only up to 2 beam hardpoints (PNT-12A) and 2 missile hardpoints (PNT-10K2/14S).

However, it would be legal to put 2 medium lasers (2t) and 2 SRM-6s (6t) instead of the standard PPC(7t)/SRM-4(2t).

But if the devs choose to add in an extra beam hardpoint, then you can field 3 medium lasers. I think if you're talking about being true to canon, then the hardpoints must just be sufficient to field all canon variants. How many extras we are allowed to have is already beyond the realm of canon entirely, and starts to fall into the realm of game balance.

[Sprouticus]

Hayashi, on 18 April 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

According to Sarna variants, the Awesome will likely have at least 8 energy hardpoints and 2 missile hardpoints, with no ballistics capabilities. But whether the devs want to add extra beyond the 8/2 is indeed up to them.

Heck, I suspect they'd tweak it during the open beta phase based on how we abuse their 'Mechs.

You are assuming 1 MWO variant has to be able to create all canon variants. This is not the case

Take the Awesome. Assume no 'extra' hardpoints (see the post above by David)

AWS-8Q
4xEnergy (one in the head, minimally useful)

AWS-8R
2xMissle
2xEnergy

AWS-8T
2xMissle
3xEnergy

AWS-8V
1XMissle
2xEnergy

AWS-9M
2xMissle
5xEnergy

This is an example of course but highlights how variants can have different loadouts.

It also highlights why some variants will always be superior is hardpoints are the only differentiator. Even with the hardpoint in the head, why would someone EVER by anything other than the 9M or 8T?

Edited by Sprouticus, 18 April 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[verybad]

Hayashi, on 18 April 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

According to Sarna variants, the Awesome will likely have at least 8 energy hardpoints and 2 missile hardpoints, with no ballistics capabilities. But whether the devs want to add extra beyond the 8/2 is indeed up to them.

Heck, I suspect they'd tweak it during the open beta phase based on how we abuse their 'Mechs.

Those are VARIANTs. They don't need to all be possible on each individual variant. That's the whole point of the variants system they've mentioned. If you want a specific loadout on a particular mech, a variant may have the hardpoints for it, but not another variant. I immagine hardpoints won't be completely limited to the number of weapons on a specific loadout, but a basic mech won't be able to load all variant loadouts onto it.

[Aegis Kleais]

So the pertinent information for a location is:

• Maximum Tonnage
  
• Max Energy Hardpoints
  
• Max Ballistic Hardpoints
  
• Max Projectile Hardpoints
  
• Max Critical Slots

For tonnage, as you add weapons / equipment / armor, you add tonnage, but the location can only support so much weight.

For critical slots, as you add weapons / equipment, you use up critical slots, and each location only has so many slots for use.

For hardpoints, they limit by weapon type. However many hardpoints there are for that weapon type dictate how many weapons of that type can be hooked up in that location (as long as you have the critical slots and tonnage available)

Do I have this right?

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 18 April 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[Hayashi]

Sprouticus, on 18 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

You are assuming 1 MWO variant has to be able to create all canon variants. This is not the case

Take the Awesome. Assume no 'extra' hardpoints (see the post above by David)

AWS-8Q
4xEnergy (one in the head, minimally useful)

AWS-8R
2xMissle
2xEnergy

AWS-8T
2xMissle
3xEnergy

AWS-8V
1XMissle
2xEnergy

AWS-9M
2xMissle
5xEnergy

This is an example of course but highlights how variants can have different loadouts.

It also highlights why some variants will always be superior is hardpoints are the only differentiator. Even with the hardpoint in the head, why would someone EVEr by anything other than the 9M or 8T?

I based that assumption on the MWO model having to be able to create all canon variants because of that very issue you mentioned of some variants being superior by way of having more hardpoints, if the MWO model were to allow different variants for 'Mechs to carry different types of hardpoints. The AWS-11M with its 8 LPPCs was the basis for the theoretical max of 8 energy hardpoints, and the 8R/T/9M variants the basis behind a theoretical maximum of 2 missile hardpoints.

Having this clear superiority of variants would go against the principle of balance they've introduced very early on in the development of the game, essentially allowing people with more C-Bills or with a real money option to purchase additional firepower capabilities that would cause the other variants to become outclassed in every way.

However I agree with you that it's an assumption, and if possible it would be nice if the devs confirm whether hardpoints are variant based or 'Mech based... and if variant based, whether certain variants would be purchasable only with real cash.

[GaussDragon]

Hayashi, on 18 April 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

For its inception it is pure conjecture at this point, but I believe the devs will be looking at every single SARNA variant, and creating hardpoints such that 'Mechs will possess the minimum number of hardpoints necessary such that every single official variant can be created ingame. They may even set these variants as presets which players can review to get a feel of what the 'Mech was intended to do. MW4 had the problem of having too many typed criticals, allowing people to make MLAS boats out of Nova Cats, Sunders and projectile boats out of Daishis. By heavily restricting hardpoints, players will be forced to customise within a narrow acceptable margin that still allows room for creativity, but not so much that boating can be done, and not so much so that capable commanders can still guess at what a given enemy 'Mech will intend to do.

We have to keep in mind though that since each mech is coming out with its prime configuration and the necessary amount of hard points that go with it, stock boats are still going to be boats - I.E., the Nova Cat was designed as a pure energy-based ranged fighter and the same goes for the Supernova and Awesome.

David Bradley, on 18 April 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

The number of hardpoints are related to the default loadout, but they aren't a one for one copy.

So how much variation is there going to be? Are some mechs going to have reduced numbers of hard points because they're naturally OP within the game's mechanics?

Edited by GaussDragon, 18 April 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[SilentWolff]

The mechlab info seems intriguing, but there are still too many questions for me to make a judgement either way at this point.

The no custom decal thing however is a real bummer. In the case of non canon units, what does it matter? I hope PGI reevaluates this stance. I also hope it isnt just an excuse for a way for them to charge us for decals they make in house either.

[Hayashi]

GaussDragon, on 18 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

We have to keep in mind though that since each mech is coming out with its prime configuration and the necessary amount of hard points that go with it, stock boats are still going to be boats - I.E., the Nova Cat was designed as a pure energy-based ranged fighter and the same goes for the Supernova and Awesome.

Certainly, but the Nova Cat was designed, as you said, as a ranged fighter. It was by default meant to be a PPC/LLAS boat, which is fine by me if we keep it that way... but what some players used it for was to make it a MLAS boat... which circumvented its heat limitations allowing it to be completely overpowered in an urban map.

Other than the fact that it's easy as hell to core since it had a huge centre torso hitbox. ;-0

MLASboating a Nova Cat betrays its long-ranged character. But if players choose to change the default to 5 LPLAS, I have no quarrel with that, even though it is also technically a boat, because they'll have to deal with the heat, and it keeps the Nova Cat long ranged.

[GaussDragon]

Your acronym is lost on me... what's "MLAS"?

Edited by GaussDragon, 18 April 2012 - 12:58 PM.