Jump to content

Hardpoint Restrictions; Fixing High-Alpha Boating, And Making Lesser-Used Variants More Useful.


64 replies to this topic

Poll: Restrictions on individual Hardpoint sizes. (57 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support the OP's suggestion?

  1. Yes. (40 votes [75.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.47%

  2. No. (Explain) (7 votes [13.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.21%

  3. Abstain (Convergence is the root of the problem, not High Damage Alphas) (6 votes [11.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Lucian Nostra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,659 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:32 PM

View Posttenderloving, on 01 July 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:


It's been longer than 2 or 3 months. People were warning PGI about this in Closed Beta. The Guassapult really got a discussion going.

It's the same reason we don't have a good drop weight balance. PGI has a weird view of players being free to do whatever they want and an engaging colorful game will just magically emerge. It's like they don't understand that people will do whatever it takes to win even if it creates boring and repetitive gameplay.


This gets overlooked so much by players and designers as well. They think allowing players total customization will create diverse gameplay when it's the exact opposite.

You need to allow customization to a point.

There's a reason terms "flavor of the month" and "cookie cutter build" exist in online gaming. If given total customization we'll flock to whats best all the time.

Even HPR won't fix this but it can at least limit the abuses that the current HP system allow and hopefully we'll see more variants start to have uses outside of what we see today.

Personally I'd still love to have seen the mechs played as stock.. A variant would actually mean something instead just just a different arrangement of HPs but I understand people like me are in the minority.

#62 Acid Phase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 553 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:51 PM

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 01 July 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:


The problem is first off, PGI doesn't seem to agree. And secondly there are players who LOVE this concept of boating, with pinpoint convergence.

It's all so freaking stupid.


Yes it is, but this concept needs to be pushed. MWO is either headed to boring boating pinpoint high alpha, or these 3 essential balance quirks shift the game enough to bring back variety.Trust me, people will leave because of the same boring sh*t. And nothing is worse for new players seeing that they don't stand a fighting chance. They won't stay for long.

#63 Jonathan Paine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 04:24 PM

I support OP on this. Not because I agree with which weapons belong in each group (LRM 20s and LRM5s as well as SRM6 with SRM2 seems particularly strange), but because his suggestion would still make the game a lot more interesting to me and seems a lot more reasonable than the current "replace 0,5 ton weapon with 15 ton weapon".

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 01 July 2013 - 04:50 PM.


#64 PooHH

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 32 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:38 AM

yes for the love of god. please. The problem isn't the PPC, or the AC/20, its the fact that you can put 6 of them on a stalker.

#65 Acid Phase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 553 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:42 AM

View PostPooHH, on 02 July 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

yes for the love of god. please. The problem isn't the PPC, or the AC/20, its the fact that you can put 6 of them PPCs on a stalker.


Fixed that for you.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users