26 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Greyfyl, on 05 February 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

The colors are the types - yellow is ballistic; green is missile; red is energy (at least I think so). I believe there was a grey omni slot too, but I could be mistaken.

The beauty of MW4 slots was that it would have kept players from putting AC-20's in areas meant for machine guns.

I too fail to see why PGI wouldn't have copied the MW4 hardpoint system. It is way better than what they implemented IMO.

I've been putting Ac's in place of lots of different weapons. TT You could have pulled the LRMs and what ever and put the Gauss into the arms of a Catapult, where the main guns of that Mech belong!

Why A Catapult and a Cataphract can carry two (or more) Gauss and an Atlas cannot... silly to me!

[Sprouticus]

Khobai, on 05 February 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Conversely, the downside of the MW4 system was that players could jam 3 medium lasers in an area meant for a PPC.

And it could not use things like CASE
And it could not use non weapons equipment like JJ's and HS since they were just 'somewhere on the mech' and never got destroyed.
And it could not really do critical hits correct.


It was not a BAD system, at least IMO. It was created to fix the 'boating' in MW2/3 and to make it easier to build mechs for non-BT players.

But I prefer a more complex system which allows PGI to add more complexity to the game as well (see above).

The hybrid system they created works amazingly well.


To the OP: PGI needed to make variants unique. The only way to do that was a hardpoint system. But even in the hardpoint system certain variants would end up with almost exactly the same hardpoints if you just used 1 hardpoint per weapon in the stock loadout.

So instead they decided to allow more hardpoing or different hardpoints for some variants. Thus the 4G vs the 4H hunchback.

It is also for balancing one CHASSIS against another. Other than hardpoints, you have torso twist, max engine size, arm vs torso weapons, max arm angle, and of course geometry and mapping of the hit locations on the mech in game to make the chassis unique. Thus catapults have a huge TT, but also a huge CT which is different that say a Centurion with the smallish CT, and really good arm angles available.


They are now introducing the quirks system as well to make each variant more unique.

[Khobai]

Quote

And it could not use things like CASE
And it could not use non weapons equipment like JJ's and HS since they were just 'somewhere on the mech' and never got destroyed.
And it could not really do critical hits correct.

None of that is relevant though. It doesnt have to be the same as battletech. Its a video game. The point of a video game is to be balanced. Part of the problem with MWO is that it tries too much to be like battletech instead of being its own game.

Here's a good example of how that causes imbalance. Battletech uses random hit locations. Armor values in Battletech are based on random hit locations. But you can aim for specific locations in MWO, so why does MWO use Battletech armor values which are based on random hit locations?

MWO's armor values should correspond to how often locations get hit in MWO, instead of corresponding to how often locations get hit in Battletech. Torso sections should be way more armored and arm and leg sections should be way less armored.

Edited by Khobai, 05 February 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[ChaosFox163264]

Bit of theory crafting here, if someone with more tabletop experience can back me up here.

From what I understand, the basic logic behind the hardpoint system follows the logic of Inner Sphere tech (non-omni) in a retrofit situation. One of the simplest and most effective means of changing equipment should be an equivalent trade within a given location based on the original build specs for that particular mech design. The idea would be that if a particular section of the mech was factory-built for a particular weapon type, it should easily be able to handle a scaled-up or scaled-down weapon of the same type. Energy weapon locations would have the appropriate electrical feeds, missile locations would have the proper ammunition feeds, ballistics would have appropriate recoil compensation, etc. Each mech would have a unique mix of what the chasis could handle without significant restruturing. I would think of it along the lines of a field refit, in the sense that certain equipment could be traded out if damaged or lost, so long as it functions within the original design for that particular location. Major changes to design, however, would require more significant redesign of internal structures in order ot provide the appropriate supporting equipment to make a different type of weapon (or multiple weapons) function within the same space. This is, of course, excluding Clan tech, since the concept of an omnimech basically dodges the whole issue of purpose-built machinery in exchange for a barebones mech with lots of reconfigurable space for whatever weaponry you choose to attach at that particular moment.

Back on the topic of IS mechs, a system along that lines should have a hard-limit based on the raw number of weapons in a given location. For example, one should be able to trade the AC20 in a HBK-4G for most any smaller ballistic, or even something larger, so long as its within the same weapon type. This runs into a minor issue when considering multiple hardpoints that are represented by a single weapon in the original build. For that design, I'd have to default back to the argument of game-balance, in the sense that the game designers are providing more 'wiggle room' for what they figure would be acceptable build designs for that particular mech. Overall the idea would be that us 'pilots' aren't getting commissioned custom-built mechs from the factory with our own loadouts, but are purchasing stock mechs and retrofitting them with the weaponry that suit our own tastes a bit better.

Anywho, that's my two cents on the matter, based on what I've grown to understand of mech internal design and function as well as some guestimation of what the game designers are trying to go for.

references:

\/\/\/ This guy for condensing a lot of Battletech technology jargon \/\/\/
http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/

FASA in general for coming up with this stuff (too many books to reference them all here)

[pistolero]

yes ... the mechwarrior 4 mechlab was far from beeing perfect
but at least it had some "rules" and feels less like random decissions


i would realy love to see a mix of both ...
something like 1 ppc in a stock variant = 1 energy weaponslot that could could be used for a combinatioon or single weapon with 3 internal slots
or something like 6 medium lasers in a stock variant = 6 energy weaponslots with each could be used for energy weapons with 1 internal slot each

i think that would support the uniquess of each mech and variant far more than the current systen
like .... if you want a lot of big energy weapons better look for something like an awesome


just my 2 cents .....

Edited by pistolero, 05 February 2013 - 11:41 AM.

[Z0MBIE Y0SHI]

I loved MW4, but remember, there were Annie's running around with what.... 6 gauss rifles?

[pistolero]

yes i know
6 gauss on 1 single mech is a lot of gauss for sure
but on the other hand side the anihilator was designed to be the "lot of big boomsticks" having mech
and as far as i can see the hardpoint/weaponslot translation could be very different

"ANH-1A - The actual variant that showed up with Wolf's Dragoons, the -1A was armed with four Autocannon/10s and four Medium Lasers."

that could mean 4 ballistic slots with each of this slots using up to 7 critical slots for a balistik weapon/weaponcombination
and 4 energy slots, each using up to 1 critical slots for weapon/weaponcombination

--> no room for even a single gauss