Official mods of hardpoints + new variants of existing chassis

[Army Vet]

I admit I would like to see official modification of some hardpoints. One example is the Hunchback-4G, it uses most of the hardpoints of the PGI model, 3 Ballistic RT and 1 Energy in each arm but only allows 1 Support weapon in the head. Like in MWO, not many will even use more than 1 Ballistic hardpoint unless the arm Energy are bigger types like 2 LLs and changing the Head weapon from Energy to Support actually weakens it. If they officially changed it to the 4H hardpoints, it could still have the stock 4G loadout but would be easier to modify with 1 Ballistic and 2 Energy in the RT.

Since PGI models were used, why are the 4SP and 4J not present? For the 4N, they could use the MWO Grid Iron model with correct hardpoints.

I once did a video back during the Beta for this game where I modded in these 4 variants partly to see how it would change the look of the models, some of the features for missing variants actually show up while certain other features do not. The existing 4P model can also render Missile tubes in the torso for 4SP and 4J, just the hunch gets in the way and not all torso lasers for the 4J show properly. A 4H will render off the existing 4G but a missing favorits fomr both this game and MWO, the 4N, has issues.

Why not let the Quickdraw-4G have the extra Missile spot of the 4H?

Are there hardpoint changes or other variants you would like to see?

 

[Jade_Rook]

I think the Trebuchet and Catapult could use extra missile hardpoints. One for the Treb and two for the Catapult. These are dedicated missile boats. It feels strange that they have fewer missile hardpoints than other mechs.

I would give the King Crab two extra ballistic hardpoints. It is a primarily ballistic assault mech and we don't have an assault with 4 ballistic hardpoints.

I would take one missile hardpoint off the Centurion and two off the missile Jager. See comments above about the Treb and Catapult being the dedicated missile boats. The missile Jager could gain a couple energy hardpoints as compensation. It should run heavy on weapons, which means lots of hardpoints.

 

[Army Vet]

I also miss the Shadow Hawk-2K

 

[Ice Trey]

I think my biggest qualms with increasing the number of variants are two-fold.

One, is that each variant appears to be treated as it's own chassis, so 'mechs that have multiple variants show up WAY more often than others. The Thunderbolt is a prime example. The periphery seems absolutely littered with them. The same can be said about the Locust.

The other issue is that it also makes the units seem more difficult to salvage. Sure, they might be different versions, but you still feel cheated when you thought you were getting that last piece of the Orion you were building, only to realise that no, it was actually the slightly different version of the Orion that you salvaged.

In some cases where the differences are really major, like the C1 Catapult and K2 Catapult, I can see the appeal. Heck, I'd love to see a Grand Dragon 3025 model alluded to in the first housebook make an introduction (While MWO has still stiffed us all these years), but some changes, like with the Shadowhawk, are so minor they might as well just not be there in the first place.

 

[Army Vet]

One, is that each variant appears to be treated as it's own chassis, so 'mechs that have multiple variants show up WAY more often than others. The Thunderbolt is a prime example. The periphery seems absolutely littered with them. The same can be said about the Locust.

Actually not true, take the 55 tonners. Currently I get more Shadow Hawks than the others yet the Hawk, Griffin and Wolverine all have 2 variants each while the Kintaro may only have 1 variant but I got enough to have one.
60 tonners are rare themselves despite there being more Quickdraws (2) than Dragons (1). 45 tonners are flat out rare too with only 1 variant of each.
I believe there is some other factor causing which variants to appear.

 

[TaurianMerc]

The obvious solution would be to get rid of hardpoints all together, and go back to the good old ways.

 

[Timaeus]

The obvious solution would be to get rid of hardpoints all together, and go back to the good old ways.

That is almost assuredly not happening.

 

[The Shadowhawke]

Overall, I'm more concerned with getting more variants in the game, but I am concerned about the weird hardpoints of the Jagermech 6-A vs the CPLT-C1.

I don't think the solution is to reduce the 6-A to one slot per arm. Rather, that variant is a ballistic/energy hybrid, and the C1 is a dedicated missile boat with a few energy slots for backup.

The tonnage of the Catapult and the size of its box launchers should easily accommodate three lighter missile racks per side, and that's how I run mine with a very simple file edit.

Yes, she's tonnage-legal...the CPLT-C1Cb field refit just runs the multiple slots this mech should have.

 

[bobucles]

That is almost assuredly not happening.

C'moooooooooooooon. What's wrong with laserboating 20 MLs and exploding with every alpha strike?

 

[The Shadowhawke]

The obvious solution would be to get rid of hardpoints all together, and go back to the good old ways.

An incredibly bad idea. What's the difference between the Orion and Marauder if you can build all the same loadouts? Perhaps speed, and that's it.

Likely the best thing to come out of MW4 in 2000 was the implementation of hardpoints, and a wide mech selection, that kept each mech in character and battlefield role. Since then, I haven't seen a better solution for the mechlab.

 

[TaurianMerc]

That is almost assuredly not happening.

I know but a grumpy trying-to-stave-off-old-age man can dream can't he?

An incredibly bad idea. What's the difference between the Orion and Marauder if you can build all the same loadouts? Perhaps speed, and that's it.

As someone who grew up with TT play and physical models, the answer is easy - aesthetics. I'd much rather take the beautiful Marauder than the ugly Orion

Likely the best thing to come out of MW4 in 2000 was the implementation of hardpoints, and a wide mech selection, that kept each mech in character and battlefield role. Since then, I haven't seen a better solution for the mechlab.

Other than the obvious opinion rather than objective fact regarding MW4, you bring up that old chestnut of "character". What is the character of the Catapult? We see the missile boat loadouts, the direct fire support loadouts, the one shot area saturation with 8 RL20s, the Artillery mechs with Arrow IV and even an anti-infantry variant with twin Plasma Rifles.
Basically put, even we stick to only variants of mechs quoted in cannon sources, you may as well just have the one chassis with every type of hardpoint. You could make a missile boat Marauder (the -4X and -9M each had an SRM6 in each side torso) and also the Hunchback (the -4J and -4M had LRMs). But if we take the character argument, one should be direct fire support, the other a close combat machine.

As I said above, I'm well aware that the devs won't be getting rid of the hardpoints soon. Not because of any character argument, but largely the practical restraint of modelling all of the possible weapons in each possible location; plus the balancing of the time and cost system. That's not to say it can't/won't happen in future games, but certainly not in this one.

 

[Army Vet]

I played old TT back in the day and I actually like the hardpoint system over the, "Do what you want," system. The original system was worse than hardpoints, both have their way of being min-maxed but the original one begged the question why have more than one model per tonnage when you can put any build on any model.

Hardpoints to me partly reflects that different models at each tonnage were needed for certain reasons including design and physical shape of weapons. Take for example the Delta Dart LRM launcher used on the Griffin-1N and Thunderbolts, now picture that cylinder shaped launcher being put on an Orion (shown with a triangular mount as part of the body), a Maurader, etc. On some models it just would not look right and there goes aesthetics and character. Similar would be found going through other weapons.

Hardpoints do still have their problems though and should be tweaked.

 

[TaurianMerc]

I'm not going to argue this as we could be here all day (figuratively) going round and round, but a few points to address..

begged the question why have more than one model per tonnage when you can put any build on any model.

Why produce more than one family saloon car? By this point everyone should just drive the same car. Or to look at it another way - at one point during WW2 the RAF were flying no less 8 different types of single seat fighter operationally.
The main answer to your point is capitalism. All these companies want customers, and generally they don't want to build the design of another company. Plus look at the debacle over the KC-X programme, one of the outstanding complaints was that one of the entries was a foreign company. Can you honestly say that the 31st century would be any different?

Hardpoints to me partly reflects that different models at each tonnage were needed for certain reasons including design and physical shape of weapons. Take for example the Delta Dart LRM launcher used on the Griffin-1N and Thunderbolts, now picture that cylinder shaped launcher being put on an Orion (shown with a triangular mount as part of the body), a Maurader, etc. On some models it just would not look right and there goes aesthetics and character. Similar would be found going through other weapons.

But then you would use a launcher that fits. Something that has been done before, repeatedly. It's like Pandora's jar, these ideas are out there and it can't really be taken back without some serious retconning going on. Why the Catapult K2? How did that happen when the Catapult should only be able to take Missile launchers in that location? (IIRC the K2 was a conversion by House Kurita and not a new production model as the only Cat manufacturers at the time were in the Cap Con)

 

[The Shadowhawke]

As someone who grew up with TT play and physical models, the answer is easy - aesthetics. I'd much rather take the beautiful Marauder than the ugly Orion

I understand what you're saying here, but as I've said in another thread, that's (at least for me) one of the beauties of this game. On tabletop, there were a fair number of mechs I put into my "Meh..." category; same with you, I didn't favor the aesthetics, so I tended to go with others.

Few would argue that the Marauder is a much sexier beast than the Orion, but this game like previous MechWarrior iterations pushed me into using what I had over what I wanted, at least in the beginning. In MW4 the Chimera wasn't that pretty...looked like a cheap Periphery design. I don't much care for the Quickdraw in this game; I swap it out for better as soon as I can. But the point is I'm pushed to use mechs in different tonnage ranges with distinctly different capability and roles, and made get a feel for them all. In my opinion, that's made a better and more rounded BT/MW player.

Other than the obvious opinion rather than objective fact regarding MW4, you bring up that old chestnut of "character". What is the character of the Catapult? We see the missile boat loadouts, the direct fire support loadouts, the one shot area saturation with 8 RL20s, the Artillery mechs with Arrow IV and even an anti-infantry variant with twin Plasma Rifles.
Basically put, even we stick to only variants of mechs quoted in cannon sources, you may as well just have the one chassis with every type of hardpoint. You could make a missile boat Marauder (the -4X and -9M each had an SRM6 in each side torso) and also the Hunchback (the -4J and -4M had LRMs). But if we take the character argument, one should be direct fire support, the other a close combat machine.

As I said above, I'm well aware that the devs won't be getting rid of the hardpoints soon. Not because of any character argument, but largely the practical restraint of modelling all of the possible weapons in each possible location; plus the balancing of the time and cost system. That's not to say it can't/won't happen in future games, but certainly not in this one.

Yes, my opinion, but one that you pretty much lend weight to with your aesthetics argument, and the fact that MW/BT games do tend to be a richer and more varied experienced experience with hardpoints, over the old open slotting.

Character as in (no idea why you felt the need to put it in italics) the battlefield role and general feel of a mech design.

We'll use your two examples...

While there are variants, generally the role and character of mech applies to every design the game produced.

The Catapult is, in my not so humble opinion, one of the best fire support mechs from the early game, which can be nicely improved in the battlefield with a few practical tweaks. While, technically, the Catapult is outdated by the Orion by a century, it looks sleek and clean; a product of advanced mech designing. Everything about it says whoop-ass and looks good doing it. I am biased myself by aesthetics; I prefer using 'walker' style mechs with an avionic styled cockpit, such as the Catapult and its descendants, including the Mad Cat.

But the Catapult backs those good looks up with performance...I also tend to go into the field missile-heavy, to 'Agincourt' the enemy before knocking holes in them with direct fire. I rely heavily on it in my campaigns...at least until I get a hold of the Stalker. Also one of the sexiest walker style beasts in the game...I collectively own more of those two mechs than any others in my multiple campaigns.

By comparison, the Trebuchet is fairly ugly, and was pretty solidly on my 'meh' list until I got pushed into using it, as the best arty support I had in the early campaigns. Came to like using it.

The Marauder just says walking death...it's lean, it's mean, it's scary to see coming at you. I might compare it to a giant scorpion on a rampage.


It may not be the best heavy mech in the galaxy with its primary configuration, but almost always a vicious beast on attack or defense. More than being locked into any specific battlefield role, I'd regard its character as exotic, as the first of a new line of advanced mechs with radical design. It's fairly versatile with its variants, and it's certainly one of the top 5 favorite mechs, based on aesthetics...probably the top 3.

In the case of the Marauder, in some ways I'd say its character overrules its practical battlefield use. It's a rockstar among battlemechs.

Now, with the Orion, the TRO: 3025 describes it as an ancient battlemech design, and it looks the part. I'd say it's one of the earliest mech designs that looks like a FrankenMech, without actually being one. With the Orion I never really equated less style with no performance, as I played it both tabletop and in various MW titled where its role and character is a good all around striker and brawler, quite tanky, and with a diverse mixed loadout that has seen a lot of configurations over the years.

This is not to say mechs should never be taken out of character, because I myself have tried a basic Catapult loadout that removes the LRM racks for SRM's instead, to make a jumpy Kintaro...still, we are limited by the hardpoints of the mech. We can widen that out with more variants; something I totally support.

 

[Yeach]

How about a mech chassis with hardpoints (jumpjets and equipment) so that all variants can be made.
Specific to the Hunchback, all major weapons should go in the right torso; no weapons allowed in the center torso (and left torso if you forget about that one variant existing)
Specific to the Centurion, all major weapons in the right arm, 2 energy slots in the CT and missiles in the LT

But then customization should come at a great cost if you choose other than the "standard" variants IMO.

 

[Simon1812]

I would love to see more variants added to the current roster. Seriously half way into the campaign and career mode, the mech bay is going to be flooded, all but the 4 of my mechs waiting to repair/refit ( some mechs waiting goes for as long as 70 days) and half a dozen just sitting in storage. sooooo many mech don't know what to do! because I want to try them all and experiment....maybe we need more mech bays...or at least each mech bay should handle a mech 's repair/refit, rather than all 3 handling one mech at the time.

Eventually you find all the mechs save for maybe 2 or 3, although the campaign seems designed to show you pretty much every mech in the game, the same doesn't seem to hold true for career mode, keep waiting for a battlemaster or a banshee to show up, maybe they are rare within free world league territory? or is it just bad luck?