Hard point inflation in battletech. What, How, Why and Where.

[Chaon]

Greetings fellow Mechwarriors.

With the new forum, I decided to start off with my thread from battletechgame.com forum on the what, how, why and where of hard point inflation in the game.

----------------------------------------

What is hard point inflation?

- It is the addition of extra hardpoints to a mech variant over those required to fit the weapons of that variant.
​

How is it being done?

- HBS devs are editing the JSON data files to include more hard points.
​

Why is it being done?

- From comments made by HBS devs, we are getting more hardpoints because we will not always have the weapons to replace those lost in combat so we will be able to use other weapons until we buy or salvage the weapons we need for replacement.
​

Where are the extra hardpoints going to be placed?

- That we don't know for sure but on the Blackjack mechlab picture we see them placed in torso and head.
​

----------------------------------------

Are you forced to use them?

- No. There is nothing forcing you to use them.
​

Do they destroy the core identity of a mech variant?

- No and yes. This is one of the questions where it is hard to declare one answer to be the truth. If the core identity of a mech is it's weapon load out, then additional hardpoints would remove that ocre of the mech. But if the core is not the weapons and something else like the look of the mech, then it doesn't. This question will never be finally answered because it is so subjective.
​

What are the additional hardpoints?

- There are four different hardpoints in the game.

1. Ballistic - Big guns, little guns, shooting the enemy with bullets.
2. Missile - Long range, short range, missiles fly to the enemy.
3. Energy - Lasers and PPC's, coherent light and harnessed electricity.
4. Support - The smallest of the weapons, Small laser, Machine Gun and Flamer.

- Each mech variant will get additional hardpoints of any of these four types.
​

How many hardpoints will be added to the variants?

- We don't know for sure. But from the two examples we have seen, 3-4 looks like the numbers. Any more would be too many for most people.
​

----------------------------------------

So go to it. Discuss and comment and give your impressions on hardpoint inflation.

 

[Packrat]

I gave my opinion back on HBS's site, but since we're kind of starting over here and new people may join the discussion, may as well put it out there: I liked the hardpoint system in MW4, and that one featured inflation. HBS's system is quite similar to it in many respects (though not identical, the most notable difference being it features no size restrictions), so I see no reason to believe it won't feel largely the same, and therefore also be enjoyable to tinker with.

 

[Juodas Varnas]

I honestly don't mind hardpoint inflation as long as it makes sense for a specific mech (even though i'd prefer sized hardpoints, myself... Maybe a combination of both)
...
I'm just hoping the hardpoint inflation doesn't end up feeling as arbitrarily awarded as it is in MW:O, where the hardpoints are distributed seemingly with no rhyme or reason to it.
Time will tell. It always does.

 

[Chaon]

Sized hardpoints are a no starter. They only really make sense when you can make engine changes and thus have the weight to play with things more.
Plus with support weapons hardpoints, you wipe out the need for sized hardpoints totally because medium hardpoints can only go up.

 

[Jade_Rook]

In addition to the Blackjack, we have also seen the inflation planned for the Vindicator. It goes from 2 energy, 1 missile, and 1 support, to 5 energy, 1 missile, and 2 support.

That will allow the Vindicator a few different energy heavy builds, but I think tonnage will be the larger constraint here.

 

[Kereminde]

In addition to the Blackjack, we have also seen the inflation planned for the Vindicator. It goes from 2 energy, 1 missile, and 1 support, to 5 energy, 1 missile, and 2 support.

That will allow the Vindicator a few different energy heavy builds, but I think tonnage will be the larger constraint here.

Well, 5 Energy makes it possible to replace the PPC with 3 Medium Lasers. and you have 4 Energy Hardpoints in use plus one other. Which could be used to replace the LRM-5 with a Medium Laser. Or the Medium Laser with a Small Laser.

In short, I don't see it as that much inflation, merely allowing you to replace broken components with the common and humble Medium Laser. Bread and butter of Inner Sphere 'Mechs.

 

[Spartakus]

Sized hardpoints are a no starter. They only really make sense when you can make engine changes and thus have the weight to play with things more.
Plus with support weapons hardpoints, you wipe out the need for sized hardpoints totally because medium hardpoints can only go up.

Nah, hardpoint inflation really makes sized hardpoints viable. And to me size limitations on hardpoints are the one thing that really preserves a mechs charachter. I acknowledge that this is a subjective thing, but I'm very much looking forward to put on my own size limitations onto my mechs' hardpoints.

 

[Samskara]

Just responded on the old forums, BLUF: not an issue for me.

 

[Gronk311]

I’m withholding judgment until I can test out the mechlab myself.

I am fine with hardpoints, in theory. But if HBS adds extra point Willy-nilley, I am concerned it will ruin the “flavor” of the mech.

It looks like HBS is trying to walk a very fine line. I can’t wait

 

[Insaniac99]

Since no one else has mentioned it yet, I want to remind everyone that there is no such thing as hardpoint inflation because in tabletop there is no such thing as hardpoints You have tonnage and critical slots, and you put what you have on hand, where you can so can get on the field and earn money.

 

[Samskara]

Since no one else has mentioned it yet, I want to remind everyone that there is no such thing as hardpoint inflation because in tabletop there is no such thing as hardpoints You have tonnage and critical slots, and you put what you have on hand, where you can so can get on the field and earn money.

While interesting I know for all of us that aren't TT gamers this is also irrelevant as this game was never meant to be a pure replication of TT BattleTech. In short the Devs can MSU to their hearts content.

 

[Timaeus]

I’m withholding judgment until I can test out the mechlab myself.

I am fine with hardpoints, in theory. But if HBS adds extra point Willy-nilley, I am concerned it will ruin the “flavor” of the mech.

It looks like HBS is trying to walk a very fine line. I can’t wait

It's definitely something HBS has been trying to do their best at, and know it will be difficult because even in the FAQ for the game they mention this:

How are you handling 'Mech Customization?
We can't answer specifically but we know we want these Inner Sphere 'Mechs to retain their "character". We also want deep customization so you can have fun tweaking your loadouts. It's a balancing act but we're not particularly interested in allowing "laser boats" and such.

 

[Chaon]

Since no one else has mentioned it yet, I want to remind everyone that there is no such thing as hardpoint inflation because in tabletop there is no such thing as hardpoints You have tonnage and critical slots, and you put what you have on hand, where you can so can get on the field and earn money.

That may be true for table top and those rules but this is a new version of Battletech.

In this version, there are hardpoints on each mech to hold the various weapons. And the devs have added some hardpoints to each mech to allow us to arm it if we lose a weapon(s) and don't have the right replacement available.

 

[Kereminde]

That may be true for table top and those rules but this is a new version of Battletech.

In this version, there are hardpoints on each mech to hold the various weapons. And the devs have added some hardpoints to each mech to allow us to arm it if we lose a weapon(s) and don't have the right replacement available.

That's how I'm seeing it with the Vindicator VND-1R right now. No clue on what the deal was with the Blackjack BJ-1.

 

[Chaon]

That's how I'm seeing it with the Vindicator VND-1R right now. No clue on what the deal was with the Blackjack BJ-1.

Same thing really. The main thing I saw in Kiva’s tweets was that losing arms and torsos was going to be common and that we would be scrambling to replace those weapons. And if we didn’t have a PPC on hand, then we better be able to put some weapon on if we had it.

 

[Kereminde]

I'll be honest, there's a lot of lost arms in my campaign history.

Let's see. Priam Company having a Griffin which lost its PPC twice, and had a Warhammer need to have it fixed rather than replaced. Twelve instances between Priam Company and the Harbingers of "Right Arm: Replace" repair jobs, four for Left Arms (though not all of those were successful). Yeah. I believe it's sufficiently close to tabletop.

 

[Hawk.eye]

There are several things I'd like to add here.

1. I don't see the need for hard-points in the campaign game _at all_.
Here, all the customization rules from the TT can be applied (bookkeeping was the main detractor there, here the PC can take care of all the dice-rolls and stuff). Your ability to customize a mech to your heart's contend would be balanced by cost, time needed and access to customization facilities (i.e. full-blown mech factories for the _really_ big ones, like engine changes).

2. In one-off games like the PvP skimish (or like in MW:O), unlimited customization is a huge problem, unless you describe to the "mechs are gunbags" school of thought. Here, hard-points can serve to keep customization in check (or you could, you know, just go with stock builds and be done)

3. That's why I'm generally not in favor of games that do both, single- and multi-player. Can't really optimize the game for both, in most cases.

4. Since Battletech _does_ have both, single- and multi-player, I would have preferred not for hard-points to be sized, but for _weapons_ to be sized.
A PPC, as a large (energy)weapon, would take up 3 hard-points with the power- and cooling lines necessary for such a powerful gun. If you were to lose that PPC to damage, and don't have a replacement lying around, you could put up to 3 medium lasers there, sharing the power-/cooling lines (small (energy)weapon, that requires 1 hard-point) or perhaps a large laser (medium (energy)weapon - 2 hard-points needed) and a medium laser.

Advantages:
-Allows to mount several smaller replacement weapons in the spot a large weapon was.
-Prevents putting a large weapon where a small one was, like replacing the MGs on a Warhammer with AC/10s (I'm looking at you, MW:O)
-Makes kinda sense (well, to me at least)

Disadvantages:
-Allows for some boating, like a 8 x medium laser Warhammer/Marauder, for example

 

[Rob-Starfleet-Graham]

The thing is especially in Single player if HBS didn't do it you'd find us modding it in very quickly because of issues, there is no issue at all with being able to Franken mech actually I WELCOME it so long as HBS have included the PENALTIES for doing it.. eg it's not just Free pull and put a new item in it takes time and Mechtech's, part and parcel of Battletech is the ability to customise your mech, but in a Campaign that comes at a price, the price being the time you have to take to get the mod done (and in Table top the risk of failing the upgrade rolls and having to buy new items because your mech tech stuffed up etc).

As for Boating, that has always been an 'issue' with any game where people get competitive it's called min/maxing and some times it works other times it doesn't, in competitive there is an easy fix for it.. you make rules on what is allowed/not allowed in terms of that for any Tourny play etc. and it IS done there are normally lists of what can and can't be done for the big comps etc.. in general play given were now 'more friendly pvp' you simply remember the person who was a min/maxing jerk and not play with them again.. simple as that.

 

[Jade_Rook]

Something that I think gets lost in the general discussions of hardpoints, they aren't just for game balance. They also simplify the art requirements. Without hardpoints, every mech has to be able to mount as many machine guns in each location as that location has hardpoints. They have to be visible, animated, and fire at the right location when the mech attacks. It might be possible to create some defaults, to standardize things, but there will still be a substantial amount of time required to check that everything is working properly and looks good. If you let them, someone, somewhere, is going to put an AC/2 in their mech's leg.

Hardpoints put limits on how much the art team has to create and check. Hardpoints take a very very large set (I can't justify calling it infinite, but I'm too lazy to calculate an actual number) of possible weapon loadouts, and reduce it to a reasonable and manageable subset.

The key is to have enough hardpoints that the mechs are usable and there is still some customization, without completely breaking the character of the mech or overshadowing another chassis.

 

[Chaon]

I agree with jade_Rook there. It was for simplification.

There was also a touch of trying to keep some people from trying to gunbag their mechs or laserboat. There is nothing more annoying than to find someone who has loaded their assault mech up with as many small weapons as possible so they can get in close, alpha strike you with a couple dozen small lasers or machine guns and try to overwhelm you with a death of a thousand paper-cuts.

I think that is why they did limitations like no engine changes so they wouldn't be able to swap to the smallest engine possible then have weight to add in multiple large weapons or a bunch of smaller ones.

Then by adding support hardpoints, they made it so they couldn't just fill all the hardpoints with small lasers/MG's/Flamers and go for melee-alphas.

They added extra hardpoints so we could have a bit of customisation as well as being able to deal with the scarcity of weapons in the beginning of the campaign.

They put a lot of thought into what they changed from TT and it wasn't to piss people off and prevent them from being creative. They just have to be a little more creative in what they do.