whats the difference between a "Class 1" hardpoint (which can mount 3m^3 weapons) and a 3m^3 hardpoint?
its just the same, so saying "it should only be defined by hardpoint size and not class" you sre saying "it should only be defined by hardpoint size and not hardpoint size"


Same with the mounting of capital ship weapons of fighters.
A complete fighter may has 500m^3.
the uberlazer may needs 5000m^3 in hardpoint space.
Regardless of how you turn it, if you design a ship that can mount the uberlazer it wont be a fighter.
You may take the hardpoint, the smallest life support capsule and reactor and slap it all together, but it wont fall under any classification of fighter.
Same with battleship shields, armor, engines etc.

You may glue a bike to a train-cannon, but you wont fit that into a bike stand...

Also: you limit the maximum hardpoint size but not the size of the ship?
What prevents you from designing a class XIII weapon to mount in your death star?

Der_Foe wrote:Why should they just suddenly level up? Why is it necessary to be allowed to buy a corvette?

They dont just level up, you sit down in a garage with a ton of manufacturing equipment and resources and take your ship apart to mount bigger hardpoints.
So you need time, money and a safe place for that.

Nobody said that you need to do that to be allowed to buy a corvette.
I see where you got that from, but correlation does not imply causation

I have to admit that having the choice to load a larger weapon appeals to me.
It would come with obvious tradeoffs. A ship will have a limited acceleration based on its ability to generate energy and thrust. The thrust depends on the mass of the ship. A higher tier weapon would need a larger capacitor to store energy in, adding to the mass of the ship. The heavy weapon itself would also add more mass. Resulting in a gimped fighter with a weapon you can only fire once in a while.

You could chose to only equip one of these weapons, to keep your mass lower. Opening up the choice of creating a ship with a single class IV weapon instead of four class I weapons. In my thinking, this single weapon would be a less powerful version than the 4 class I weapons combined, but perhaps it would fit certain playstyles better
Perhaps the mass of a single IV weapon is lower than four class I combined, resulting in more excess energy for bigger engines. I wouldn't rule out having to add upgrades to a hardpoint, to provide strength to the hull it connects to.

Where would that single class 4 weapon be mounted?

The hardpoints you are substituting could be all over the ship.

Averages or other things wont really work for that.

I think such actions would fall under "ripping your ship apart and putting it together in another form".
Taking you time, resources and equipment to do so.

It also removes commitment to the choice of your ship if you can substitute hardpoints for another in no time.
Leading to ships being just a pool of poins into which you fill your equipment, according to what you need at the moment.
Being able to retool a freighter into a battleship just by docking for a few minutes, taking out cargo holds and filling in turrets and shields instead sounds to me like non-existent design in that regard.

Why should i develop dedicated freighters or combat ships if i can substitute them for another within minutes?

Im not against mounting bigger weapons instead of multiple smaller ones, but im against trading anything for anything for free.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:Where would that single class 4 weapon be mounted?

The hardpoints you are substituting could be all over the ship.

Averages or other things wont really work for that.

I think such actions would fall under "ripping your ship apart and putting it together in another form".
Taking you time, resources and equipment to do so.

It also removes commitment to the choice of your ship if you can substitute hardpoints for another in no time.
Leading to ships being just a pool of poins into which you fill your equipment, according to what you need at the moment.
Being able to retool a freighter into a battleship just by docking for a few minutes, taking out cargo holds and filling in turrets and shields instead sounds to me like non-existent design in that regard.

Why should i develop dedicated freighters or combat ships if i can substitute them for another within minutes?

Im not against mounting bigger weapons instead of multiple smaller ones, but im against trading anything for anything for free.

I think there should definitely be a cost and time disadvantage if hardpoints are changed on a ship. The process of upgrading weapon hardpoints for a ship should disable use of the ship for the upgrade time while also costing the person performing the upgrade quite a bit of cash. Maybe upgrade costs double for every level of hardpoint. So upgrading from level 1 to level 3 hardpoint costs 4 times the base cost while also taking up 3 level one hardpoints. If the ship doesn't have the level one hardpoints to support the upgrade then the option to upgrade is not available. Beyond this there could be statistical disadvantages to using non-default hardpoints on a ship such as slower speed, less efficient power transfer, or possibly longer cool downs between shots.

i'd use different penalties for changing hardpoints

• lower hitpoints for the whole ship, as you graft things onto it, which isnt an ideal technique
• higher mass than standard hardpoints, due to overhead in construction, this also indirectly lowers ship speed
• higher total ship size, due to inefficiencies or the grafted onto hardpoint needing more space than the one you substitute ( 1x class 2 -> 1x class 3 for example)

Cornflakes_91 wrote:i'd use different penalties for changing hardpoints

• lower hitpoints for the whole ship, as you graft things onto it, which isnt an ideal technique
• higher mass than standard hardpoints, due to overhead in construction, this also indirectly lowers ship speed
• higher total ship size, due to inefficiencies or the grafted onto hardpoint needing more space than the one you substitute ( 1x class 2 -> 1x class 3 for example)

Are you wanting those to all be a penalty, or just one of them? I definitely agree with the second or third one, but I don't think you should lower the hitpoints of the ship. That's just a little too penalizing I'd say. Especially with the increased cost inherent in changing these hardpoints as it is.

There definitely should be the ability to change hardpoints after construction. And I'd argue that they should be only a minor amount of lowered efficiency. I'd say they start at 1/2 efficiency at the lowest, and go to around 4/5th efficiency. Capturing ships and refitting them should be a viable way of playing. While it shouldn't be as efficient as making new classes of ships to fit each role, it should be a viable way of doing things.

EKHawkman wrote: Capturing ships and refitting them should be a viable way of playing. While it shouldn't be as efficient as making new classes of ships to fit each role, it should be a viable way of doing things.

Refitting or swapping weapons of the same hardpoint type shouldn't be an issue. The issue comes when a significant change is made to the ship (in this case getting a much larger gun installed on a ship with smaller hardpoints).

Cleafordmirs wrote:I agree that this game needs sized hardpoints for Battlemechs. This gives more meaning to Omnimechs with their omnipods.

But boating of weapons is not a problem, it's a symptom of the issue, weapon convergence.

I appreciated this excellent first post. Welcome to the forums Cleafordmirs.

Cleafordmirs wrote:I agree that this game needs sized hardpoints for Battlemechs. This gives more meaning to Omnimechs with their omnipods.

But boating of weapons is not a problem, it's a symptom of the issue, weapon convergence.

Are you sure you intended this for Limit Theory? It sounds like you are talking about MWO. Did you post to the wrong forum? Omnimechs, omnipods, battlemechs; this is all terminology for a different game.

I suspect it was a joke. You don't see posts like this on MWO anymore, it's too general and... Reasonable

Well Idunno about you guys but I thought this thread about Weapon hardpoints size customization has provided me with countless hours of fun and I would like to thank you for providing it to me

Scytale wrote:Well Idunno about you guys but I thought this thread about Weapon hardpoints size customization has provided me with countless hours of fun and I would like to thank you for providing it to me

Yer welcome.

Idunno wrote:

Scytale wrote:Well Idunno about you guys but I thought this thread about Weapon hardpoints size customization has provided me with countless hours of fun and I would like to thank you for providing it to me

Yer welcome.

yeah Idunno hey

Scytale wrote:

Idunno wrote:

Scytale wrote:Well Idunno about you guys but I thought this thread about Weapon hardpoints size customization has provided me with countless hours of fun and I would like to thank you for providing it to me

Yer welcome.

yeah Idunno hey

Oh, but you do know.