Quote
I'll just skip the pathetic attempt to suggest that I obviously must be mentally inferior for not agreeing with you.
Well as long as you're acknowledging it.
Quote
Such a system would, in fact, be successful... at limiting. But that's about it. It wouldn't remotely create a diverse game where people can pick mechs because they like the mechs and play them in a style they want to play. They would be forced to pick a mech already pre-selected to be the style they want, if one even existed. To a certain extent that can be said of the current system, but in a much more variable way. Let's take the K2 as an example. By the current system I could run:
- Standard-type load; 2 big energy, 2 small energy, 2 MG(?)
- Big energy load; 4 big energy
- Mixed load; 2 big energy, 2 medium ballistic, and maybe squeeze in 2 small energy
- Ballistic load; 2 big ballistic w/ maybe some number of small energy back-up
- Ballistic load 2; 1 big ballistic, 4 small energy back-up
- Mixed load 2; 1 big ballistic, 2 big energy
Standard type is worthless.
Big energy load is what the vast majority of people use with either quad LL or quad ppc.
Mixed load is worthless.
Ballistic load is only used with AC40, and it's purely inferior to the jager with the same build and has vanished from even vaguely high elo.
1 big ballistic and 4 small energy backup is worthless.
Mixed load with 1 ballistic and 2 energy is worthless.
Oh look, you listed the only three K2 builds anyone ever uses, quad PPC and quad LL which most people think is exploitative and above the power curve for heavy mechs, and you listed the AC40 build which vanished a month ago since the jager does it better in every way and which is thought of as the stupidest and most exploitative build in the game.
Quote
Those are just off the top of my head, and each one has options within it. By the system you encourage you could run
Funny, that's all you listed too. You just pretended more builds were viable because the only way to support your theory is by playing pretend.
Quote
Yeah, I think I already covored which one of us knows what diversity is.
You're either ignorant or lying to prove your point. There is no middle ground here.
Quote
You don't cut the available options in half, you cut them to almost nothing. The choice between Medium and Small Laser isn't a real choice. MGs would be MGs, with no options at all. Maybe we'd get to choose between Gauss and AC20 on the few mechs that could carry them, and had the crits for a AC20. Or if we're lucky, we could downgrade to a smaller AC, but that's just a direct downgrade of the mech, since we couldn't upgrade somewhere else to balance it back out. The same goes for sticking a small energy in a large energy slot. Downgrading in one place without the ability to upgrade in another leaves no viable options. So it really does stick everything into something very close to no significant options at all. If the options aren't significant, then they're not real options, just window dressing.
What are you smoking? The choices are cut exactly in half. Under the LL is the med, med pulse, small, small pulse, flamer, and tag. The LL and above is the LL, Pulse LL, PPc, and ER PPC. The same goes with what is equivalent to and above and below the ac5. Same with the LRM 10 and SRM4 and their place in the middle of their respective weapon range. You have literally no leg to stand on here. None.
Quote
Not even remotely true. I already covered the differences in limitations, so I won't repeat it. The fact of the matter is plenty of people don't use the same cookie-cutter builds. Your ill-conceived notion would take away all their fun, sometimes goofy, personalized builds in a vain effort to force more variety on power-games. Which proves that either you haven't a clue about the psychology of power-gaming, or are being deliberately obtuse in your refusal to acknowledge it.
You didn't cover anything. You lied about what is actually used in this game. You conflated what is possible with what is viable and therefore what is possible with what actually occurs. Possibility isn't reality.
Quote
So you take away all these options, and the power-gamers will diversify into using a broad spectrum of mechs (notice I don't say 'builds', because that no longer has significant meaning)? Wrong. Despite your attempts, there would still be a given mech that would stand out as the best at what it does, for whatever reason. Now there would probably be a few such mechs, to fill different roles, but these would be the only mechs such players used. Don't delude yourself into thinking they would use other mechs, because they only want to accomplish one thing. And with no significant choices to make in load-out, there would be no question as to which mech for a role was the best. All you will have accomplished is to consolidate the power-gamers into fewer mechs and ruin any chance for enjoyment among those that enjoy customization for it's own sake.
Except hardpoint sizes removes every exploitative mech build from the game instantly. SRM spam a1? Nerfed. Quad PPC stalker? Impossible. Tri PPC/goose highlander? Impossible. LRM 60 stalker? Impossible. Ac40 jager? Only available on one in four variants as opposed to being literally the only jager anyone uses. Will power gamers gravitate to the most powerful mech builds? Naturally. But that mech build won't universally be the 4 ppc stalker anymore, and even if there is a "most powerful variant" the distance between it and the rest will be greatly reduce. That directly increases the viability of other mechs and therefore directly increases the variety in the game.
This forums architecture is awful. If can't handle long posts with large quote strings without exploding.
Continued after deathlikes post.
Edited by Shumabot, 13 June 2013 - 04:51 PM.