213 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Bobzilla, on 29 April 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

It would probably go a long way if they just changed the available slots to match what the mech would actually be capable of instead of all mech slots being cookie cutter.

So lets start marching...

[Kivin]

As an annex to what I originally wrote, perhaps it would help "the cause" if the owners of any one of the several quality Mech Lab applications were to make this their cause, and implement any of the suggestions in an alternate-version of their app. Then we could do side-by-sides of the 'Mechs in game and deal better with the knee-jerk reactions of the white knights.

I was working on a desktop Mech Lab that was going to replace the original Java based one, and it was shaping up nicely. But I quit production on it when smurfy-net was released because it just had more potential.

Edited by Kivin, 29 April 2013 - 07:20 AM.

[tenderloving]

Kivin, on 29 April 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

As an annex to what I originally wrote, perhaps it would help "the cause" if the owners of any one of the several quality Mech Lab applications were to make this their cause, and implement any of the suggestions in an alternate-version of their app. Then we could do side-by-sides of the 'Mechs in game and deal better with the knee-jerk reactions of the white knights.

I was working on a desktop Mech Lab that was going to replace the original Java based one, and it was shaping up nicely. But I quit production on it when smurfy-net was released because it just had more potential.

I had the thought the other day of developing a "Sanity" league for when private matches are allowed. A group of players could agree on the allowed hardpoints for the mechs and make an online mechlab that fits those rules. Over time I think people would look over the fence at how varied and fun the private matches are and start wishing for the system to be implemented across the board.

Edited by tenderloving, 29 April 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Kivin]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

I had the thought the other day of developing a "Sanity" league for when private matches are allowed. A group of players could agree on the allowed hardpoints for the mechs and make an online mechlab that fits those rules. Over time I think people would look over the fence at how varied and fun the private matches are and start wishing for the system to be implemented across the board.

That made me laugh out loud, literally, and nearly wake my sleeping wife. Thanks, you jerk.

It's prettty conniving. I like it!

Personally speaking, I know almost nothing about TT and don't really care to. But 'Mechs which are fit closer to what we know as "stock" loadouts are a lot more interesting to me, and I would totally participate in a hypothetical league where we could use some underdog builds and not be thoroughly trounced for it.

[tenderloving]

Kivin, on 29 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

That made me laugh out loud, literally, and nearly wake my sleeping wife. Thanks, you jerk.

It's prettty conniving. I like it!

Personally speaking, I know almost nothing about TT and don't really care to. But 'Mechs which are fit closer to what we know as "stock" loadouts are a lot more interesting to me, and I would totally participate in a hypothetical league where we could use some underdog builds and not be thoroughly trounced for it.

I'm in the same boat. I could care less about TT. I just want good gameplay, which we don't have right now.

[Kivin]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I'm in the same boat. I could care less about TT. I just want good gameplay, which we don't have right now.

Ditto. It's really frustrating to me, and not just because I want to see a commercially acclaimed MechWarrior title. My words aren't gospel, but as far as I'm concerned, those of Sid Meier are. The man has spent most of his adult life not just making critically acclaimed games, but also delving in to the depths of the human psyche to figure out why people like his games so much, and how to repeat that with other games. He travels the world and does conferences where he explains his successes, and his mistakes, and all the little things he's learned along the way. I took the time to listen to one of these assemblies on a live recording out of Germany and it really changed the way I looked at game design. Nowadays, I don't represent a suggestion unless I can apply teachings like his to it. Sid Meier would rest his face in his palm if he saw the state of affairs in this game, and that alone should be a sign that immediate and drastic change is required.

[tenderloving]

Kivin, on 29 April 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Ditto. It's really frustrating to me, and not just because I want to see a commercially acclaimed MechWarrior title. My words aren't gospel, but as far as I'm concerned, those of Sid Meier are. The man has spent most of his adult life not just making critically acclaimed games, but also delving in to the depths of the human psyche to figure out why people like his games so much, and how to repeat that with other games. He travels the world and does conferences where he explains his successes, and his mistakes, and all the little things he's learned along the way. I took the time to listen to one of these assemblies on a live recording out of Germany and it really changed the way I looked at game design. Nowadays, I don't represent a suggestion unless I can apply teachings like his to it. Sid Meier would rest his face in his palm if he saw the state of affairs in this game, and that alone should be a sign that immediate and drastic change is required.

League of Legends isn't perfect but they have a great design philosophy that they faithfully attempt to apply to balance:

http://na.leagueofle...ad.php?t=293417

You can pick out a ton of stuff in this game that breaks a lot of them. I suggest thinking about the current ECM, machine guns, or 0-1000m high alpha boats while you read it and seeing how many of each they violate. They break different "rules" in some cases, but it's pretty interesting to see how badly designed they are.

Edited by tenderloving, 29 April 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Kivin]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

League of Legends isn't perfect but they have a great design philosophy that they faithfully attempt to apply to balance:

http://na.leagueofle...ad.php?t=293417

You can pick out a ton of stuff in this game that breaks a lot of them. I suggest thinking about the current ECM, or 0-1000m high alpha boats while you read it and seeing how many it violates.

I admit that I haven't followed LoL nearly as closely as I perhaps should. Its gameplay type just doesn't appeal to me. By all accounts, though, it is a genuinely well designed game, made by people who own up to real design values. Skimming over that link tells me that LoLs success isn't a coincidence, and I am going to read it more carefully when I'm in a more sane mood.

[cyberFluke]

Weatherman, on 06 March 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

To the people complaining that limiting what can be placed in a hardpoint removes the "fun" from the game, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I remember playing TT. I remember supper cheese builds that weren't anything close to canon. I remember that playing with the various stock mechs and their variants made for a much more interesting game that had a more story like feel to it. PGI talked about wanting to make MWO a mix of FPS and Sim as well as telling a story. I am seeing to many changes favoring FPS over SIm and story, and it concerns me. The idea of taking mechs straight from the BT universe, customizing them a bit (I am fine with not being allowed to simply scratch build a mech), and playing in a persistent universe that had the various conflicts that BT is known for was enough to get me to support this game.

Until community warfare is implemented I will have to simply wait and hope for the latter. For the former though, I absolutely believe that the Devs need to seriously consider adjusting the hardpoint system in a manner that preserves the fantasy of BT while still being fun for all players.

I think the MW4 format is very close to what needs to be changed. I don't care how many people try to sell me on Gauss Cats and Gauss Ravens, I dislike the fact that someone so drastically alter the design of a mech in such a way that it ignores the very concept of hardpoints. Adopting the MW4 hardpoint slot system allows us to customize our mechs in a reasonable manner while restraining some of the more ridiculous builds.

To answer some of the arguments made against the MW4 style hardpoint limits:

@Renthrak - I don't understand how you can look at the MW4 system and find it simplistic. The design may be simple, yes, but the customizing of a mech requires some serious thought. I also believe that the MW4 slot system can absolutely be combined with the critical slot system already in use (and so well known to those of us from back in the day).

@Adrienne Vorton - How is it you see this as limiting a mech to downgrading only? If I strip the small lasers off a mech and replace them with medium lasers, that works perfectly fine in the MW4 system. If I strip out an AC/20 from my Atlas and replace it with two Ultra AC/5s, how does this not work in the MW4 System. I am confident that if the Devs put their effort into adopting the MW4 system they could absolutely find a good balance of slots with hardpoints based on the original weapon and the size of the mech. Yes, that means smaller mechs cannot mount Gauss Rifles and such, but let me remind you that the Hollander, a 35 ton light mech, was specifically designed around the Gauss Rifle because the thing is too massive for a light mech. Look at the Hunchback with that giant cannon on its shoulder. That is there because an AC/20 is massive.

All the MW4 system does is place realistic limitations on what can be placed on a hardpoint, based on the size of a mech and the original weapons load out. I believe a lot of people agree with me, even old school TT players who understand how out of hand customizing can get when you don't have enough limitations. Until we change this system we will absolutely see players spamming the flavor of the week and making ridiculous alterations to mechs that aren't close to the semi-realism that the game is supposed to embrace.

I'm just thinking, rather cynically, I'm aware....

Unfortunately, as totally correct as you are, a balanced game isn't conducive to selling the latest slightly better than previously available to an ever shifting metagamer. If there's a new flavour of the fortnight every patch, there's a flood of people spending real cash to make sure they have whatever is deemed "OP" at the time. If you have a well balanced game, players find their role and stick to it, thus spending less cash on the game.

I'm aware not everyone will spend to get the tools, but a large enough portion will, hell, one of the MOBAs still does that I believe. Every new hero is slightly OP, then gets nerfed a couple of weeks after launch, when everyone has bought it for it's slight advantage.

Take what you will....

[Zyllos]

Kivin, on 29 April 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

I've read this thread in its entirety carefully, twice, and done my best to give serious consideration to each argument. Even the ones I despise. I am reasonably sure that instituting this change would be a very positive move for the game as a whole, and restore my personal faith and enjoyment in it.

Now, this thread has been derailed several times, so in an effort to remain on track, let's talk about the issue we're actually trying to solve:

In the current meta-game balance, players are rewarded with increased efficacy and performance by grouping many duplicates of the same weapon type.

If you don't agree with that statement, or feel like it doesn't accurately address the "issue," then we need to clarify it, or else we're just blowing around ideas without any real goal.

Assuming we can agree with the above statement, and agree that it is problematic for the health of the game, then I'll share a few thoughts. I don't profess any of this to be gospel, but I have put some considerable thought in to the issue.

(*) Imposing hard point limitations reduces choices:

This has been a common point of view, both in this thread and over the remainder of the forums. Anything that reduces the impression of player choice is a decidedly bad thing. Players feel like they're most in control when they choose to do a particular thing, and that thing leads to a successful outcome. And that makes people happy.

However, I feel like making limitations on some or all hard points in the game will actually lead to more player choices. Although players could make fewer viable kits with a particular chassis variant, they could use additional chassis variants to perform particular roles.

The Hunchback 4G has long been the ugly duckling of the Medium weight-class. And the Yen-Lo-Wang is a fairly lackluster Hero. But if (most) 'Mechs in the game were brought down a notch or two, the 4G and YLW might actually stand out in a weight class that typically fields fairly nominal weaponry like medium lasers, machine guns and streak pods.

(*) Applying the OP's change prevents desirable boating:

This is patently false. What it actually does it allow us (us: the people doing the balancing) to more finely tune the jobs of particular 'Mech variants. It could end up being perfectly acceptable for a certain variant to boat weapons. The Hunchback 4P could stand out in its weight class as a 'Mech with a fearsome number of medium lasers, or one of the few 'Mechs in the 50-tonne range which can actually squeeze the hardware of a couple large lasers in to its shoulder pod.

(*) This change could actually increase immersion and the simulation qualities of the game:

If we were to hypothetically limit the raw number of things that could go in to any given 'Mech component, then the modelers and artists would find it much more practical to implement gun-specific barrels for other chassis than the Jaegermech. You'd be able to drill down your optics on a particular foe and gauge what he's using.

(*) The "current situation" is an epidemic which is going to get worse over time:

We currently find ourselves in a situation where no sane player would willingly bring out many of the available 'Mech variants. In fact, players presently get stuck gathering XP on 'Mech variants which they don't like, just so they can use the one that is actually viable on the battlefield. By all accounts, Piranha is going to continue releasing 'Mech chassis well on in to the future. Based on simulations of the past six months, it can be hypothesized that many of these new releases will fit in to one of two categories:

(A) The chassis/variant does the same thing as what we already have, but better. Old dog gets traded out for the new puppy.

We've seen this already, when certain CTFs replaced the K2, Jaegers replaced both, Highlanders replaced all of the above. Please note: I'm not actively involved in the game right now, so if this is a colourful stretch, please give it some latitude.

( The chassis/variant does roughly the same thing as we already have, but worse. It's derided by many as a worthless addition to the game, poor use of developer resources, and the list goes on.

The Spider. Need I say more? I will: The Flea.

Adding an additional layer of limitations on the hard points would allow the developers the opportunity to bring some of these ugly ducklings back from the brink with a new lease on life. Other variants that literally have never been favoured in the meta could see use for the very first time.

In closing:

Imposing limitations on the players through hard points doesn't necessarily need to be a scary thing. The two all-important things that we should desire are:

- Enough choices that the game doesn't feel stale.
- Boundaries on choices so that we can't break the game.

These really go hand in hand. Choice without boundary will always get abused, and this leads to an unhealthy game and unhealthy player base. Some might call it "hard core," but what it typically leads to is a small, insular community which quickly rejects anything that isn't already in the game, and very high new-player retention, as beginners are unwelcomed by both players and punishing game mechanics.

I'm currently involved in three other gaming communities which are similarly symptomatic and they all suffer from exactly the same issues. Player choice is eclipsed by the fact that only a few actual options are sane in the meta. New players and open-minded vets are singled out and lynched by mobs of angry veterans who like it exactly like it is. The IP owners have difficulty holding on to new players because the game mechanics are difficult and punishing. Two of these games have been out for a fairly significant amount of time (like, out of beta for over a year) and have either had their time in the sun and lost most of their players (which is tragic) or never really reached the levels of success that they were slated for, which is really disappointing. I can't help but feel like MechWarrior Online is destined for the same fate, if the developers don't find a way to take away from us the tools of our own destruction.

Uhh...

/thread

This is a very well thought out post on why adding limitations actually adds more valid choices while restriction overall maximum choices.

Edited by Zyllos, 29 April 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[Plavis]

The reson i buy a mech is for the possible loadout,

I buy A1 cose it is a missile specialist, i know its the only frame that can unload a full volley of 4x LRM 15 or 6 LRM 10, i know its the only 1 that can unload all SRM in 1 volly, if i wanted to limit the missile volly i would use my atlas.

i Buy an ilya cose i know its the best frame that can use 3 UAC5 and have enough tonnage to have 3 ML as back up.

I buy a jagger DD cose i can fit 6 AC2 if i wanted to limit how many AC2 i can use my JMS.

i have 3light mechs, 6 medium mechs, 9 heavy mechs, 3 assult mechs for a reson, cose evry frame i use to specializ on somthing.

If you telling me to limit my A1 load out to 4 LRM you just made my A1 usless cose my C4 alredy dose this and has 2 energy hardpoints.

Yes evry mech can fit any weapon they can if the tonnage and critical slots allows them but not all mechs can perform best yeild from a frame that is specialized.

Dont fix what is not broken.

Edited by Plavis, 01 May 2013 - 01:08 AM.

[Kivin]

Plavis, on 01 May 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

The reson i buy a mech is for the possible loadout,

I buy A1 cose it is a missile specialist, i know its the only frame that can unload a full volley of 4x LRM 15 or 6 LRM 10, i know its the only 1 that can unload all SRM in 1 volly, if i wanted to limit the missile volly i would use my atlas.

i Buy an ilya cose i know its the best frame that can use 3 UAC5 and have enough tonnage to have 3 ML as back up.

I buy a jagger DD cose i can fit 6 AC2 if i wanted to limit how many AC2 i can use my JMS.

i have 3light mechs, 6 medium mechs, 9 heavy mechs, 3 assult mechs for a reson, cose evry frame i use to specializ on somthing.

If you telling me to limit my A1 load out to 4 LRM you just made my A1 usless cose my C4 alredy dose this and has 2 energy hardpoints.

Yes evry mech can fit any weapon they can if the tonnage and critical slots allows them but not all mechs can perform best yeild from a frame that is specialized.

Dont fix what is not broken.

Hi, and thanks for your input. Your concerns are understandable, so let me see if I can lend a hand in putting them to rest.

The idea isn't to fix what isn't broken, it is to fix specifically what is broken: Boating large numbers of high damage weapons. Mechs which do not fit in to this problem do not necessarily need to be changed.

You're right that the CPLT-A1 is a missile specialist, so it should be allowed to retain that specialization, so long as it doesn't interfere with the balance of the game. If we hypothetically limited the A1 to four LRM launchers, it would not be useless; It's still the only Mech in its class which has six missile hard points, and that makes it unique. What else could use four LRMs and two S/SRMs? It wouldn't be redundant to the C4 for this reason. Either way, I wouldn't necessarily be against the A1 fitting six LRMs as long as the net payload isn't so large that it breaks the game.

By the same token, Ilya is not game breaking when it fields three UAC/5s, and as such I would not be against it being one of the only Mechs capable of fielding that many Ultras, securing its uniqueness. Boating AC/2s was only game breaking when the AC/2s had too much cockpit jitter and smoke limiting visibility, so I'm not against the DD keeping six AC/2s for unique flair, either. See a pattern, here?

I'm all for restrictions on Mech loadouts, but I'm also one of the strongest supporters of player choice in games. If I thought that imposing these changes would reduce overall player choice, I would decry it loudly. Let me re-state something that I said earlier:

Quote

Applying the OP's change prevents desirable boating:

This is patently false. What it actually does it allow us (us: the people doing the balancing) to more finely tune the jobs of particular 'Mech variants. It could end up being perfectly acceptable for a certain variant to boat weapons. The Hunchback 4P could stand out in its weight class as a 'Mech with a fearsome number of medium lasers, or one of the few 'Mechs in the 50-tonne range which can actually squeeze the hardware of a couple large lasers in to its shoulder pod.

Boating isn't necessarily evil. Just as the 4P might stand out once again as a remarkable boat-Mech, your A1 could too. We can draw the line when boating becomes the only viable choice, and when it allows pinpoint alpha-strikes that encourage cowardly sniper tactics and discourage thoughtful game play. Since the A1's LRM/SRM boating and the DD's AC/2 boating aren't really game breaking, they probably need little or no interference.

Edited by Kivin, 01 May 2013 - 01:30 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Boating itself isnt problem, there are mechs that are designed just for that.
Problem is when you allow boating to all mechs, without any pushback (not even heat or cooldown one)
.

Edited by Big Giant Head, 01 May 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Any of these ideas will work, and I think are nessecary to restore some balance and reason to the game. For those claiming these ideas will leave you with a huge amount of unused tonnage I would suggest that you then consider the trade off going to a standard engine, or not bothering with Endosteel and/or FF.

As it stands you must end up buying at least one of XL/ES/FF on nearly every build (or downgrade standard engine size drastically) to be competitive, in addition to DHS (essentially required for an efficient build). This shouldn't be the case, and these types of restrictions would help bring the "stock" variants back into line as useful builds.

I still think that heat management, convergence, and LRM/missiles/ mg's/ heat penalties all need to be addressed as well. But this kind of a change would be highly welcome and quickly help downplay the problems all those other issues might also address.

[Sybreed]

cyberFluke, on 29 April 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

I'm just thinking, rather cynically, I'm aware....

Unfortunately, as totally correct as you are, a balanced game isn't conducive to selling the latest slightly better than previously available to an ever shifting metagamer. If there's a new flavour of the fortnight every patch, there's a flood of people spending real cash to make sure they have whatever is deemed "OP" at the time. If you have a well balanced game, players find their role and stick to it, thus spending less cash on the game.

if PGI stops boating through the mechlab, then releases a canon boat, imagine all the noobs throwing their money at them

[ArmageddonKnight]

Greetings.

OP i have brought this up a few times in variouse threads. .the problem is what ur sugesting will put forward some major changes that one particular large portion of the community would/will b*tch about to high heaven.

Light mechs who wield many medium/large weapons and speed around with them taking out larger mechs. This idea of urs would stop that ..which is good ..but those pilots .no no ..u will hear their QQ from miles away.

i have always agreed that large weapon like the guass, large AC's ..PPC's ..large lasers etc are physicaly to big to mount of small mech UNLESS that varient is specificaly desgined to wield it. i.E the hollander, and hunchback both have modifications that stick out like sore thumb to wield a AC20 or guass. A Spider with a ERPPC however. does not ..and yet we see that.

Restriction by weight is FAR better than restriction by critical slot. Why ? .. Compare the Large Pusle Laser and PPC. they are both large weapons ..but they have different critcal slot usuage. or even a Small laser vs a medium laser (1 slot each but different weight) If u set a resriction to open, then u may still get mechs running around with a weapon that physicaly wouldnt fit. Tonnage on the other hand i think may be a bit better, though i have not specificaly looked, there may be some waposn with the same issue as the critical slot comparison of the LPL and PPC. So you restrict each hard point to a specific tonnage. So if u have 5 energy hard points , u can make 3 of them 2 ton nrestrictions and 2 0.5 tonns. Allowing up to 3 MPL and 2 SL. just an example.

Anyway the idea is great, needed even ..but u will get people disliking it simply becouse they wont be able ot fit large weapons on smaller mechs.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 01 May 2013 - 10:02 AM.

[Kivin]

ArmageddonKnight, on 01 May 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Greetings.

OP i have brought this up a few times in variouse threads. .the problem is what ur sugesting will put forward some major changes that one particular large portion of the community would/will b*tch about to high heaven.

Light mechs who wield many medium/large weapons and speed around with them taking out larger mechs. This idea of urs would stop that ..which is good ..but those pilots .no no ..u will hear their QQ from miles away.

i have always agreed that large weapon like the guass, large AC's ..PPC's ..large lasers etc are physicaly to big to mount of small mech UNLESS that varient is specificaly desgined to wield it. i.E the hollander, and hunchback both have modifications that stick out like sore thumb to wield a AC20 or guass. A Spider with a ERPPC however. does not ..and yet we see that.

Restriction by weight is FAR better than restriction by critical slot. Why ? .. Compare the Large Pusle Laser and PPC. they are both large weapons ..but they have different critcal slot usuage. or even a Small laser vs a medium laser (1 slot each but different weight) If u set a resriction to open, then u may still get mechs running around with a weapon that physicaly wouldnt fit. Tonnage on the other hand i think may be a bit better, though i have not specificaly looked, there may be some waposn with the same issue as the critical slot comparison of the LPL and PPC. So you restrict each hard point to a specific tonnage. So if u have 5 energy hard points , u can make 3 of them 2 ton nrestrictions and 2 0.5 tonns. Allowing up to 3 MPL and 2 SL. just an example.

Anyway the idea is great, needed even ..but u will get people disliking it simply becouse they wont be able ot fit large weapons on smaller mechs.

Quote

will put forward some major changes that one particular large portion of the community would/will b*tch about to high heaven.

It seems to me that they (we?) do that already, so I don't forecast any real change in weather.

Quote

u will hear their QQ from miles away.

That's true, but I already hear their QQ from distant star systems. Hopefully, they would be willing to sacrifice the immediate ability to monkeywrench in heavy weapons for the promise that, at some point in the near future, a chassis could be released which specifically supports this (see the Hollander on page #1). Future releases could, of course, be given moderation to make sure that they are not abused.

Quote

Restriction by weight is FAR better than restriction by critical slot.

I'm not convinced of either. All I know is, if we fail to institute a change, this game is going to the grave. I think it's exactly that serious. I wont be convinced of any one particular solution, be it critical slots or tonnage or something else that I lack the vision to come up with myself, until I've seen it in a hypothetical Mech Lab application.

Quote

Anyway the idea is great, needed even ..but u will get people disliking it simply becouse they wont be able ot fit large weapons on smaller mechs.

I'm not against huge weapons on tiny Mechs, if there is a precedent for it. The important thing is that the Light weight class is not exceeding their intended damage output. Is a spider with a single PPC really game breaking? It's silly, but I don't think it is ruining the game any more than the superficial but possible AC/20 Raven. I only think that these unions of tiny mech and gigantic weapons should be handed off to specific chassis. The Hunchback is a good example; when you see a 4G, you have a pretty fair idea what's in his hump, and you know how to deal with it. Dealing with an ER PPC spider isn't quite as obvious.

[Big Giant Head]

Kivin, on 01 May 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

The Hunchback is a good example; when you see a 4G, you have a pretty fair idea what's in his hump, and you know how to deal with it. Dealing with an ER PPC spider isn't quite as obvious.

Yeah, you hit the spot, I cant handle this cheesy hardpoint system in MWO. Hunchback 4H has to have its right torso resized btw

[Big Giant Head]

Im just gonna say, I know this is hardpoint topic, but if PGI doesnt want to do changes over hardpoints, they can simply implement variation of R&R. There are many versions of R&R that are well thought out and they could help balance this whole disaster, but not for 100% IMO.

[Kivin]

Big Giant Head, on 01 May 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Im just gonna say, I know this is hardpoint topic, but if PGI doesnt want to do changes over hardpoints, they can simply implement variation of R&R. There are many versions of R&R that are well thought out and they could help balance this whole disaster, but not for 100% IMO.

Discussions tend to go smoother when a particular thread stays on topic. Whatever merits that an R/R system might have should be discussed elsewheres.