Because by the time they get around to adding those technologies, the game engine will have undergone an overhaul.
New Merc Campaign Info from PDX Stream
- Thread starter Wanderer2142
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So you're saying then that the engine wont undergo an overhaul by the time XL engines come out? Even though several of the functionalities I explicitly named are concurrent to, or earlier than, the re-introduction of XL engines?
That doesn't make sense.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...types-amounts-locations-based-on-mwo.1079269/
Tnairen, I have no idea what you are talking about. That link has the hard points from MWO. The urbie's and king crab's (and others) 'extra' hard points come from there. Not HBS.
I don't know if were just talking past each other or what, but it seems rather evident that they're based on the MWO models they're using, plus their own approach to 'support' points, not anything else.
That they went through and discarded different approaches during the beta is hardly surprising or significant.
If its something else, it amounts to an absurd coincidence or honorknight is prescient.
Tnairen, I have no idea what you are talking about. That link has the hard points from MWO. The urbie's and king crab's (and others) 'extra' hard points come from there. Not HBS.
I don't know if were just talking past each other or what, but it seems rather evident that they're based on the MWO models they're using, plus their own approach to 'support' points, not anything else.
That they went through and discarded different approaches during the beta is hardly surprising or significant.
If its something else, it amounts to an absurd coincidence or honorknight is prescient.
Last edited:
I plan on not thinking about it too hard, and just enjoying the game.
I get what @Tnarien is saying as far as hardpoint inflation, essentially adding more to the point of going beyond the capabilities of the base design?
As a TT and MegaMek stock fan, I just stick with that. In a Single Player setting, there should be more relaxed freedom so there are options for different player attitudes towards this issue. For the Multiplayer perspective, I could perhaps forsee the inflated hardpoints being an issue, but we won't know until we can dive in depth with it.
Personally I'd like to see a Difficulty option that enforces specific customization levels in SP and/or MP.
Examples:
[ ] Stock Only (Can only upgrade the same weapon type to an upgraded/downgraded one, AC/10+ with an AC/10++ etc.) At this level a player can play it two ways essentially, 'Hardcore' stock where you simply don't upgrade to a better manufacturer variant, and always use Luxor D-Series AC/10 for a CN9-A, or Semi-Stock where they complete side-grade upgrades with a little better AC/10, a little better Medium Laser, etc.
[ ] Level 1 Customization (Lowest hardpoint allocation, CN9-A receives 1 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 1 Missile - so you can only replace the AC/10 with any Autocannon type, but only one)
[ ] Level 2 Customization (Inflated hardpoint allocation, CN9-A receives more hardpoints per location, self-explanatory)
[ ] Level 3 Customization (Inflated/Open-Like customization, moving a CN9-A ballistic to the torso, or a Missile to the CT, etc., like a blank record sheet, do whatever)
If something like that does not appear, I guarantee players in an MP league setting would enforce these rule types in specific ladders. At least Stock through Level 2 anyways. Level 3 may require modding for Frankens.
As a TT and MegaMek stock fan, I just stick with that. In a Single Player setting, there should be more relaxed freedom so there are options for different player attitudes towards this issue. For the Multiplayer perspective, I could perhaps forsee the inflated hardpoints being an issue, but we won't know until we can dive in depth with it.
Personally I'd like to see a Difficulty option that enforces specific customization levels in SP and/or MP.
Examples:
[ ] Stock Only (Can only upgrade the same weapon type to an upgraded/downgraded one, AC/10+ with an AC/10++ etc.) At this level a player can play it two ways essentially, 'Hardcore' stock where you simply don't upgrade to a better manufacturer variant, and always use Luxor D-Series AC/10 for a CN9-A, or Semi-Stock where they complete side-grade upgrades with a little better AC/10, a little better Medium Laser, etc.
[ ] Level 1 Customization (Lowest hardpoint allocation, CN9-A receives 1 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 1 Missile - so you can only replace the AC/10 with any Autocannon type, but only one)
[ ] Level 2 Customization (Inflated hardpoint allocation, CN9-A receives more hardpoints per location, self-explanatory)
[ ] Level 3 Customization (Inflated/Open-Like customization, moving a CN9-A ballistic to the torso, or a Missile to the CT, etc., like a blank record sheet, do whatever)
If something like that does not appear, I guarantee players in an MP league setting would enforce these rule types in specific ladders. At least Stock through Level 2 anyways. Level 3 may require modding for Frankens.
The allocations are the same. But the way hardpoints work in the games are fundamentally different.
In HBS:BT a single hardpoint can fit any weapon, regardless of its size.
Where they come from isn't the issue at hand. It's that the two systems are fundamentally different and the MWO allocations allow for a significantly greater degree of meta-stupidity when applied to a system that handles weapons differently.
That's part of it (see prior rants regarding the Urbie and Locust for instance). The other is that it doesn't remotely jive with the statements that HBS is making regarding "keeping a chassis identity".
Now I know theyve made some significant walkbacks on that point, but as recently as yesterdays stream they were making the argument that their design intent is to try to keep the baseline flavor of a particular variant's chassis while allowing some additional flexibility to combat the "crap my Hunchie just lost its AC/20, how do I keep this pupper on the board as a combat viable unit?" quandry. For the record, I'm firmly in favor of added hardpoints to do that, especially in the context of adding support hardpoints to units that otherwise couldnt mount SL/MG/Flamers.
These allocations go far above and beyond that.
You know guys, i'm not a Mod, but this certainly seems like something more appropriate to the bickering thread than to a thread for the Merc Campaign info...
@Tnarien
A hypothesis that occurs to me, but would basically seem to imply that HBS was cornered by implementation details: the matter of how they actually implemented the support hardpoints underneath. Would have a better idea once somebody posts a screenshot of the mech lab with the locust hardpoint layout.
If the support hardpoints require the usage of existing hardpoints (ballistics for MGs, energy for SLs/Flamers), then the two additional ballistic hardpoints may in fact just be relics of where the support hardpoints needed to be opened up to allow the MGs to be fitted in. Which turns out to be the same place that they're putting in SLs/Flamers. It just turns out to be a implementation detail that is particularly benign for the Locust because you can't actually fit anything practical in those ballistic hard points.
A hypothesis that occurs to me, but would basically seem to imply that HBS was cornered by implementation details: the matter of how they actually implemented the support hardpoints underneath. Would have a better idea once somebody posts a screenshot of the mech lab with the locust hardpoint layout.
If the support hardpoints require the usage of existing hardpoints (ballistics for MGs, energy for SLs/Flamers), then the two additional ballistic hardpoints may in fact just be relics of where the support hardpoints needed to be opened up to allow the MGs to be fitted in. Which turns out to be the same place that they're putting in SLs/Flamers. It just turns out to be a implementation detail that is particularly benign for the Locust because you can't actually fit anything practical in those ballistic hard points.
I don't believe this to be the case as it would create circumstances wherein a unit couldn't actually use support hardpoints its been given (the Spider for instance was shown as 2 Energy, 2 Support, and in this scenario would only be able to mount Small Lasers and/or Flamers which to my mind defeats the purpose of forking Support from Energy/Ballistic mounts). That being said I have no direct evidence to contradict said hypothesis.
I'll go back to the stream after work and see if I can get a screenshot of the Locust in the mechlab. I'm not sure we got that particular view necessary to answer the question in this case.
I can think of a reason why the 2 energy, 2 support would still work, but would corroborate what we got in the commando twitter screenshot of the hard points a while ago: the model for the laser ends up being a box with two circles. So they can handwave the smaller laser as one of the smaller circles, if they end up mapping to the same hardpoint.
I can think of a reason why the 2 energy, 2 support would still work, but would corroborate what we got in the commando twitter screenshot of the hard points a while ago: the model for the laser ends up being a box with two circles. So they can handwave the smaller laser as one of the smaller circles, if they end up mapping to the same hardpoint.
The other end of that is that the Firestarter for instance would need to have an absolutely ridiculous number of hardpoints (2 Ballistic, 6 Energy, 6 Support) to jive with this system if I'm correctly understanding the way you're postulating it.
Perhaps your definition of chassis identity is different for HBS's? Just a thought.
Are you telling me that a King Crab is an energy and/or missile boat, or that an Urbanmech should be able to carry as many autocannons as a Jagermech? Because if so I want to know what BattleTech universe I've been living in for the last thirty years.
AFAIK in Battletech TT there are no hardpoints therefore the current system is vastly different than the Battletech universe you think exists.
it does not really matter whose point i prove, i was always against hardpoints and i saw early on that certain mechs were practically unable to be modified (like the raven until we knew it was cut) so it was clear that hardpoint inflation had to take place.
That said what you said in your last post is simply not true (so i do not see where i supported your argument) there is no limiting factor (apart from general weight and slot limitations) in making your KingCrab a missile or Energy Boat in the TT Battletech rules to my knowledge. (same with the Urbanmech)
Wait, what? As a person who came to this game via MW2 this is mind blowing to me.
What is the distinction between 'standard' mechs and Omnimechs then? Because I thought it was the Omnimechs ability to mount whatever you can cram on there.
And nowhere did I say that CBT customization rules preventing anything of the kind. Rather that the stated design goals of the HBS:BT system and its implementation are in existential conflict, which presents balancing concerns.
I'd be perfectly happy with a 1:1 stock environment or a full on "do whatever the hells you want if you have the time and C-Bills" environment. What is being presented right now is a very strange middle ground that tries to be both things and yet ends up being neither while also not succeeding at the stated goal of preserving an individual variant's essence.
This is a complicated answer. The short version is that the only thing a mech has to do to be a legal design in the tabletop is adhere to the tonnage and critical slot requirements. Beyond that, so long as you're in compliance with the basic construction rules you're good.
IE: A Locust cannot carry 200 tons of equipment or mount 80 clan-spec light machine guns.
Now there may be house rules that limit some customizations or require players to only use variants described in sourcebooks, but that's for individual players to hash out amongst themselves.
The primary difference between a standard mech and an omnimech is that the omnimech is specifically engineered to be re-customized on the fly. One can generally change everything (except the engine, the internal structure, the armor type and heatsink type) on an omnimech in a matter of hours. The same procedure would take weeks to months on a standard mech.
Last edited: