31 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

I'm gonna get flamed for saying this, especially by the TT guys but I honestly thing PGI should consider making the hardpoint system [HPS] even more restrictive than it is now (and to small degree more flexible).

Instead of just having ballistic, energy, and missile hardpoints; hardpoints should come in sizes as well (light, medium, heavy, assault) and only fit weapons of the correct type and size (perhaps up to one size smaller).

For example: a Centurion's "good arm" should be a Heavy Ballasitc hardpoint which could fit a AC/10 or AC/10-LBX. With the idea that it could also fit one size down that could be expanded to AC/5, uAC/5, and AC/2. But slotting a machine gun makes no sense.

Another good example would be the Catapult K2. The ballistics hardpoints should be small ones, limiting the mech to fitting only machine guns. Honestly, the hardpoints should be ballistic/energy small hardpoints allowing small lasers, small pulse lasers, and machine guns. The existing energy hardpoints would be a pair of heavy energy and a pair of medium energy hardpoints.

Anyways, a system like this would add a little more flexibility while forcing people to keep to the spirit of the mech they're using.

Just a suggestion for PGI as mech aquisition will be a large part of the game. That said, PGI would need more mechs and more variants so that people could find the basic chassis they want (dual gauss snipers have a valuable role even if it's not the CAT-K2's role).

[Nightfangs]

I still don't understand why they didn't use the system from MW4.
That is basically what you proposed.
It's not that they have to invent everything from scratch.
The critslots&"maximum number of weapons per section" is just... strange. Sorry, TT guys!

[DeadlyNerd]

That's cause every post like this gets flamed by die hard streakcat and gausscat pilots who think they are the top pilots evar, specially streakcat pilots (seen one aim, my eyes bled).
On one hand people don't want to abandon their OP (highly tuned my ***, 6 streaks weigh 9 tons, rest is just a big engine and a shitton of ammo) mechs cause it'll force them to learn the game instead of cruising on autopilot through it.
On the other hand PGI hasn't given a single damn about these issues meaning they probably intended them to be here and stay for good.

And just so we're clear on facts here, no catapult EVER had SRMs except the Jenny "Butterbee" which seems to me is a hero mech.

[Hauser]

focuspark, on 23 November 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Another good example would be the Catapult K2. The ballistics hardpoints should be small ones, limiting the mech to fitting only machine guns. Honestly, the hardpoints should be ballistic/energy small hardpoints allowing small lasers, small pulse lasers, and machine guns. The existing energy hardpoints would be a pair of heavy energy and a pair of medium energy hardpoints.

It's been said a few times that K2 with gauss are fine. So you'll have to think up of a few more example where the current system doesn't work. Right now there is no reason to implement more restrictive hard points.

You might also be interested in the weapon thread. The gauss rifle will become more fragile.

http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

[Redshift2k5]

Everyone has been complaining about the K2's ballistic hardpoints, but this is mainly a symptom of certain dual ballistic build being very good builds (2x gauss, 2x ac-20, 2x Ultra/5) but fixing this issue for the K2 does not solve the issue in the long run.

There are several more Heavy mechs who will be sporting similar builds (and worse! 2x AC5 and 2x AC2 or 4x AC2 are deadly on the battlefield!). We've already seen some excellent Cataphract builds, and the Jager mech will be able to do some similar builds (note: The Jagermech has one fewer arm actuator than the CTF-4X so it can mount more/larger ballistic weapons!)

2x ballistic weapon K2s are good, but they're not overpowered. 2X Gauss rifle builds are all getting a nerf soon as well (gauss rifle explosions will be much more likely and deal appropriate damage when destroyed). They already nerfed the K2 by removing the PPC barrels if you strip the PPCs, this makes a K2's side torsos much less protected.

tldr; small ballistic hardpoints are not neccesary. Heavy mechs with 2x and 4x ballistic weapons are here to stay, get used to it.

[Vaerhoren]

DeadlyNerd, on 23 November 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

That's cause every post like this gets flamed by die hard streakcat and gausscat pilots who think they are the top pilots evar, specially streakcat pilots (seen one aim, my eyes bled).
On one hand people don't want to abandon their OP (highly tuned my ***, 6 streaks weigh 9 tons, rest is just a big engine and a shitton of ammo) mechs cause it'll force them to learn the game instead of cruising on autopilot through it.
On the other hand PGI hasn't given a single damn about these issues meaning they probably intended them to be here and stay for good.

And just so we're clear on facts here, no catapult EVER had SRMs except the Jenny "Butterbee" which seems to me is a hero mech.

Do I smell butt.hurt over cata pilots?

I agree with Redshift2k5. Even before the nerf; gausses play a specialized role in the battle - and in order to build it, one must give something in return, be it ammo, speed or mobility. Besides, there are number of ways to counter gausscats (to name one, get your lights to flank them and blow them away. Or harrass until reinforcements arrive).

Streaks? Well, streaks are dedicated light/medium-light hunters. Go figure, they can blow up lights quickly and effectively! (Don't get me started on 130kph Jenners + Lag shield. Yeeah.) Any decent pilot in a heavy or assault can send them to kingdom come. High dmg =/= really destructive build.Probably it just means that your damage is spread across the whole mech. Which is *badum* worse than focusing on one component.

MWO is a team game. You play a role. Stick with it, and don't expect to be good at everything - killing snipers, chasing lights, smashing assaults and then capping the base while withstanding LRM barrage (Oh, wait. I actually play with a Jenner pilot who can do all this things. But I don't cry over it).

Edited by Vaerhoren, 23 November 2012 - 05:20 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

Vaerhoren, on 23 November 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

Do I smell butt.hurt over cata pilots?

Streaks? Well, streaks are dedicated light/medium-light hunters. Go figure, they can blow up lights quickly and effectively! (Don't get me started on 130kph Jenners + Lag shield. Yeeah.) Any decent pilot in a heavy or assault can send them to kingdom come. High dmg =/= really destructive build.Probably it just means that your damage is spread across the whole mech. Which is *badum* worse than focusing on one component.

I could say I smell a streakcat pilot there but no I'm not ********, I admit that I do make mistakes of charging too fast and then get assraped by aimbot brawl.

Streaks hit mostly the torso areas now meaning they're pretty much back to where they were before that "nerf" which seemed to nerf only streakboat builds as my dragon suffered no nerf since his streaks are in the CT and fired as a small swarm. The only people who complained about streaks were the ones who had streaks in their side torsos or arms. Sure they're fine for hunting lights but when they become THE weapon of choice against heavier mechs (boating is all about that) it means that the system is flawed.

I'm no going to cry nerf streaks though as it's the hard point system that is allowing this.

EDIT: You do realize that I could've just bought the A1 and trolled people without saying a word about the OPness of the streak build and maybe on occasion flame those that complain about streakcats.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 23 November 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[Dagger906]

DeadlyNerd, on 23 November 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

That's cause every post like this gets flamed by die hard streakcat and gausscat pilots who think they are the top pilots evar, specially streakcat pilots (seen one aim, my eyes bled).
On one hand people don't want to abandon their OP (highly tuned my ***, 6 streaks weigh 9 tons, rest is just a big engine and a shitton of ammo) mechs cause it'll force them to learn the game instead of cruising on autopilot through it.
On the other hand PGI hasn't given a single damn about these issues meaning they probably intended them to be here and stay for good.

And just so we're clear on facts here, no catapult EVER had SRMs except the Jenny "Butterbee" which seems to me is a hero mech.

Actually, since streaks are only available in ssrm-2, the smallest caliber, so far, it would only be single slot under MW4 system. Notice how Cats can fit 12 ssrm-2s in MW4.

The reason for streak whine in MWO is due to MWO's lack of effectiveness in its energy/long ranged weapons. A Streakcat in MW4, despite packing twice the dps as in MWO, would be headshotted by mechs fitting 4+ ER PPCs long before it gets into range.

[focuspark]

Just to be very clear here, I have no issue with gausscat except that the model doesn't match the loadout at all and that the catpheract is a better model for dual gauss.

[IceSerpent]

Nightfangs, on 23 November 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

I still don't understand why they didn't use the system from MW4.
That is basically what you proposed.
It's not that they have to invent everything from scratch.
The critslots&"maximum number of weapons per section" is just... strange. Sorry, TT guys!

Don't be sorry - we have been suggesting this literally for ages, except for the "one size smaller part" (which IMHO doesn't give us anything useful). I am pretty sure that first time I personally suggested this was last December and I wasn't the first person to do so.

Hauser, on 23 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

It's been said a few times that K2 with gauss are fine. So you'll have to think up of a few more example where the current system doesn't work. Right now there is no reason to implement more restrictive hard points.

A mech that packs all of its weapons in a location that is virtually impossible to hit from the front is about as far from being "fine" as it gets. If Stalker is built along the same lines, it will be even deadlier than gauss Cat.

Quote

You might also be interested in the weapon thread. The gauss rifle will become more fragile.

Makes no difference - if you can't hit it, you can't break it.

[Xandralkus]

There is no fundamental reason that a hardpoint and a critical should ever have been different things.

Give us weapon-type criticals, and give us enough so that we actually HAVE a tangible choice between 1 large laser, 5 medium lasers, and 10 small lasers. And adjust laser stats so that this is actually a choice, so that the medium and small laser are no longer extremely OP in terms of DPS per ton, alpha per ton, and damage per heat.

See here:
http://mwomercs.com/...eapon-redesign/

[IceSerpent]

Xandralkus, on 23 November 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

There is no fundamental reason that a hardpoint and a critical should ever have been different things.

There's also no fundamental reason why oranges and horses should be different things, except that they are. A hardpoint is weapon mount (possibly of a certain size), a critical is a unit of measure used to determine how much stuff you can put into a given location.

[Psydotek]

IceSerpent, on 23 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

A mech that packs all of its weapons in a location that is virtually impossible to hit from the front is about as far from being "fine" as it gets. If Stalker is built along the same lines, it will be even deadlier than gauss Cat...

Fortunately the Stalker does not have any ballistic hardpoints.

[Fenturi]

Right now SSRM boats are about the only way to deal with 130KPH Jenners. Try to hit one with AC5's on a 48KPH mech sometime.

[focuspark]

Fenturi, on 23 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Right now SSRM boats are about the only way to deal with 130KPH Jenners. Try to hit one with AC5's on a 48KPH mech sometime.

I find that large and medium lasers work well... just say'n.

[Carnelian]

I aggree with the OP, mostly because it will make the different chassi more diverse, as well as recognizable.

[Eviscerator]

While I don't agree with hardpoint sizes, I do believe that a weapons bay should occupy only a set number of crits, and incur a c-bill penalty for installing weapons beyond those limits. As flexible as 'Mechs are, these heavy weapons require support and a reworking of the chassis to deal with the extra recoil, would they not?

[focuspark]

The primary reason I started this topic was because I felt (and still feel) that the model should represent the loadout. I'm not worried about SSRM2 overpowering everything else because that's an issue with SSRM2s. Same goes for Gauss vs other ballistic weapons; not the topic here.

My primary complaint was that (and the K2 is going to be my example again) you see a mech with 2 massive energy weapons for arms and 2 tiny machine gun barrels sticking out only to discover that those machine gun barrels are really massive Gauss Cannons and the energy weapons are not only fakes, but unarmored fakes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

There are mechs designed to field a pair of massive ballistic weapons (Catpheract for example) and the dual massive ballistic loadout should be limited to them.

One of the posters above comments on the "one size smaller" thing being kind of pointless. Sure, I agree. I was trying to be flexible without immersion breaking but I agree, I'd prefer to see "medium energy hard points" being used for medium energy weapons only.

I don't like the idea of weapon bays being based on crit size. Critical spaces and hard points are separate, harmonious systems.

Lastly, I had no idea this was in MW4 (mechwarrior 4?). I've never played a mechwarrior game before. I'm only played mech commander and 2 goes at TT battletech nearly 20 years ago.

[IceSerpent]

Psydotek, on 23 November 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Fortunately the Stalker does not have any ballistic hardpoints.

It doesn't need any - STK-3F comes with 6 energy and 4 missile harpoints stock, that's more than enough firepower to obliterate anything.

focuspark, on 24 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

My primary complaint was that (and the K2 is going to be my example again) you see a mech with 2 massive energy weapons for arms and 2 tiny machine gun barrels sticking out only to discover that those machine gun barrels are really massive Gauss Cannons and the energy weapons are not only fakes, but unarmored fakes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

They are changing that (albeit slowly) - in some cases changing weapons already changes the look. For example, removing PPCs from K2 already removes those massive barrels from the "wings".

Quote

One of the posters above comments on the "one size smaller" thing being kind of pointless. Sure, I agree. I was trying to be flexible without immersion breaking but I agree, I'd prefer to see "medium energy hard points" being used for medium energy weapons only.

Given that we already have "1 hardpoint = 1 weapon" rule, a more simple approach would be to just have the upper limit of crits per hardpoint. In other words, you can replace a large laser with either medium or small, but you can't replace it with a PPC. Same goes for ballistics - you can replace AC10 with AC5 or AC2, but can't put AC20 or gauss in there.

Quote

I don't like the idea of weapon bays being based on crit size. Critical spaces and hard points are separate, harmonious systems.

You can introduce "small/medium/large" mechanic, but ultimately it serves the same purpose as crits, and rose by any other name is still a rose...so why create unnecessary entities?

Quote

Lastly, I had no idea this was in MW4 (mechwarrior 4?). I've never played a mechwarrior game before. I'm only played mech commander and 2 goes at TT battletech nearly 20 years ago.

MW4 is freeware now (mektek version of it), so you can download it and see for yourself.

[JustAStick]

If the mw4 system were used everything would be fine.