35 replies to this topic

[Lucinator]

completely agree, implementing hardpoint restriction would actually add variety to the game as people would have to use a more diverse weapons loadout and play different chassis to get the loadout they want

[Gaan Cathal]

Lucinator, on 11 June 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

completely agree, implementing hardpoint restriction would actually add variety to the game as people would have to use a more diverse weapons loadout and play different chassis to get the loadout they want

Er, no. It would limit the number of viable mechs by excluding a number of them from whatever the day's FOTM weapons are.

[Aim64C]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 May 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

But doesn't this create new problems as well - The K2 arm slots only show two big guns. Changing that to 3 Medium Lasers each is not necessarily an improvement, it is as aesthetically unpleasing as Gauss Rifles fitting inside a Machine-Gun emplacement. The latter was eventually adressed on the visual side, so maybe the 3 Meds in a PPC slot could be fixed too. And I am partial to giving the K2 two extra energy slots in the arms, because there aren't enough build options that actually utilize the arms well.

Aesthetic arguments are ... silly ... in the face of balance issues.

Assault mechs are in a horrible state, right now, because of the way the hardpoint system works. There is, quite literally, no reason to utilize smaller weapons. Heavies suffer from the same thing, to a lesser extent. Why put in a medium laser when you can put in a PPC? You can't put in two medium lasers instead of a PPC without consuming two energy hardpoints.

That means your sensible loadouts are restricted to what weapons give the most bang per weapon.

Quote

I think what I would like to take away from Mechwarrior 4 hard points is the concept of "direct-fire" hard points. I'd give the K2 a direct-fire hard point in each arm, instead of an energy hard point.

Direct-Fire was not a concept of MechWarrior 4. That was a concept later introduced by Mektek.

I think the MechWarrior 4 MechLab should be combined with the MechLab of Mech Commander 2 - where weapons took up space on a 2d plot as opposed to the 1d plot of MW4... though it applied to the whole mech - the concept could be sub-divided into each torso/arm section to represent the space available and space consumed by weapons.

The artists have a long time to play around with getting all of our hideously contrived mechs to work right. The problem, right now, is that their hardpoint system doesn't work well with a realistic player base.

Gaan Cathal, on 12 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Er, no. It would limit the number of viable mechs by excluding a number of them from whatever the day's FOTM weapons are.

You say this - but I still find plenty of variants that are perfectly viable to play in today's PPC heavy environment. The thing is that certain chassis are almost impossible to use without exploiting the hardpoint system in a specific way. If it's an energy hardpoint - I should be putting a PPC there if I can afford the tonnage and heat. If it's a ballistic hardpoint - I should probably ignore it unless I can invest in an AC5 or 10.

Why? Because I can't work 5 medium lasers reasonably into a Stalker when I could (and arguably should) have 4 PPCs.

The same problem comes about in the Awesome, Atlas, etc. You may as well forsake the small weapons entirely or just ignore the hardpoint slot to invest in a heavier weapon system on your hardpoints of focus (or ammo to feed them).

[Gorbag]

The online translator was used

Only MW4 hardpoints. This idea will solve a problem of boats not less than completely.
The second option in vote won't give that variety of acceptable mech configurations what can be received in the first option.

The online translator was used

Edited by Gorbag, 13 June 2013 - 12:23 AM.

[DocBach]

I like the current hardpoint system, but I would have added a caveat and split the difference between "small" and "large" weapons; ie

Small Energy could fit flamer, small laser, medium laser, and pulse versions, Large Energy would be Large lasers and PPC's, ER and pulse versions of that. So on an Atlas you could pull the arm medium lasers out for pulse lasers, but you couldn't swap them for ER PPC's.

It would have prevented boating and the issues we had with machine guns turning into Gauss rifles, and kept 'Mechs closer to their intended roles.

[Belorion]

You guys are viewing the MW4 hardpoint system through rose colored glasses. There is every bit as much room for abuse with it, as with the MWO system, maybe even more so.

I just started up MW4 and made a catapult with 4 small lasers, and 8 ssrms. It did quite well.

[Iron War]

Belorion, on 13 June 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

You guys are viewing the MW4 hardpoint system through rose colored glasses. There is every bit as much room for abuse with it, as with the MWO system, maybe even more so.

I just started up MW4 and made a catapult with 4 small lasers, and 8 ssrms. It did quite well.

That is why we should also keep the Number restrictions.

[Waking One]

All we need is the system we have now, but with limited sizes. One weapon per hardpoint still, but max size is the default weapon, or slightly modified to make certain ****** variants better.

[Karl Streiger]

I really would like a more difficult approach:

First change:
Hardpoints are optional
these hardpoints have values for crit size and weight:
any change will reduce the weapon efficency (heat, rate of fire, damage, range, thoughness)

For example the arm for the K2
optimal weapon functionality can be achieved by mounting 1 energy weapons with 3 crits and 7 tons.
so ER-PPC or PPC will work 100% or even 105% to bonus for keeping true to the desing.

You can mount 2 Large Laser

• over weigt of 3tons detraction of 5%
  
• over crit of 1 - detraction of 3%
  
• 2 weapons - detraction of 10%

So both Large Laser will work only at 82% of their optimal
could mean (more heat) and less damage and an increase of cool down

But you can even mount a GaussRifle.

• overweight of 8 tons ~ 11%
  
• overcrit of 4 ~ 13%
  
• ballistic weapon 10%

So that GaussRifle will work only at 66%

[M0rpHeu5]

I voted number 2, this is the ideal setup imo

[Bendak]

Sharg, on 21 May 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

This really needs to happen. It would make some neglected 'mechs (see Awesome) actually be viable.

The awesome is underrated although it's centre torso is massive. I thoroughly enjoyed levelling two of the variants with 2 LLas in each arm and 3 MPulse in the torso. Viable if piloted well... and it was very, very quick to master. Duel arm death for the lights that are foolish enough to take you on, who need streaks to make them think twice!

Edited by Bendak, 26 August 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Eddrick, on 06 March 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

But, you couldn't put anything bigger then what was there to start with.

You could ....

[AC]

Gorbag, on 13 June 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

The online translator was used

Only MW4 hardpoints. This idea will solve a problem of boats not less than completely.
The second option in vote won't give that variety of acceptable mech configurations what can be received in the first option.

The online translator was used

Take a closer look at the second option... it can be created in such a way to be a hybrid of the MWO and MW4 systems. PGI could keep the exact weapons slots they have now, but restrict each weapons slot by how many critical spaces a weapon that goes there can take.

For example.... The Treb that can currently fit a hunchie loadout. It has 2 ballistic slots. One ballistic slot can be 7 critical space and the other can be 5 critical space. This allows a single AC10, LBX10, but not two, twin UAC5, AC5, or AC2, but prevents an AC20. (Hunchie load out).

This would provide a lot of customization while preventing the mechs from all being the same and preventing massive PPC/Gauss boats. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting bored with the new mechs. I look at the new mechs and have little interest in buying them because they have identical weapon load out potential as my current mechs. This is in the best interest of PGI, because they can then continue to sell mechs as they will be more unique.

Edited by AC, 27 August 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Lightfoot]

We don't have missiles in MWO mostly because of the CPLT-A1, although there is no excuse for the useless LRMs, I don't even use AMS anymore.

I would be fine with MW4 styled Hardpoints and PGI could have much more specialized Mechs to sell. I would definately drop the Missile Tube restriction, that is just bogus with not one spec of a link to Battletech.

I still feel MWO's main problem is that the 2xRecharge is forcing Mechs to just go face-to-face in combat, but they aren't armored for face-to-face combat. In MW4 only RACs and AC2's forced you to face your target 100% of the time, but the reward was high DPS. The longer recharge weapons only required you to face your target on weapon-ready status. The only thing that will fix this and keep 2xRecharge is to make the critical areas of the Mech tougher somehow.

[Johnny Z]

DocBach, on 13 June 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

I like the current hardpoint system, but I would have added a caveat and split the difference between "small" and "large" weapons; ie

Small Energy could fit flamer, small laser, medium laser, and pulse versions, Large Energy would be Large lasers and PPC's, ER and pulse versions of that. So on an Atlas you could pull the arm medium lasers out for pulse lasers, but you couldn't swap them for ER PPC's.

It would have prevented boating and the issues we had with machine guns turning into Gauss rifles, and kept 'Mechs closer to their intended roles.

This is a good idea mentioned in many topics and replies. Hope this is added.

[Captain Katawa]

This will actually solve everything and allow peole to mount lots of mediun lasers instead of one large or a PPC