45 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

KISS. Odd idea for PGI it seems, ah well... might as well spell it out.
Battletech Tourneys have followed the "Stock IS/Clan" rules for fighting, why don't we?

It would simplify alot of the issue... but I know, we all want customization!


So, once again, I call for the much vaunted "Hardpoint Crit Sizes" idea!


Basically we do this; we take every mech chassis by their default Stock configuration - and use that as the determining factor for the available Hardpoint Crit Size where you can swap or alter what can be mounted on it.

This then limits what the options are for variant modifications by limiting what can - and can't - be mounted on it. It brings back the idea that certain mechs are meant for certain niche roles by the weapons they can carry and limit variables.

Want an Artemis-mounted Missile Laucher? Going to need to admit it'll be a smaller size.
Want PPC on that Stal.... but that AC40 Jag... oh nevermind.
How about that dangerous dual PPC Haunchback? Meet the ML Awesome!

Yeah, I see that as a bit more fun personally.

[Homeless Bill]

What you people don't seem to get is that hardpoint restrictions aren't "simple." In terms of development time, it would be a huge pain in the ***.

I like the idea of hardpoint restrictions, but people need to stop pretending it's something simple to code. Working within the existing mechlab, I can practically guarantee it's not.

[El Bandito]

Implement convergence first IMO.

At least fix the damn hit-reg fail.

[Dracol]

I'm going to approach the counter argument from the business angle....

One avenue of revenue PGI has selected is premium time. In order to make the c-bill bonus worth while, players require a variety of items to purchase.By designing the hard point system they have, players have flexibility to try out a variety of builds on a single chasis. This increases the c-bills used outside of mech purchases.

If they were to limit hard points further, this would decrease the demand for premium time. Fewer options per chassis would reduce the amount of c-bills spent per chassis.

Another benifit to the greater variety of options available to spend on a single mech chassis is the availability of the MC purchasable chassis. If a player spends a lot of c-bills trying differant things on one chassis, when it comes time to level a new one, or when a new mech is released, the player has the incentive to spend real cash on purchasing the new chassis.

If a player did not have the option to build a variety of mechs, which would happen if a limited hard point setup was initialized, then c-bills would stockpile there by reducing the incentive to spend real world cash on premium time and/or MC mechs.

[Jesus Box]

That would take too much time, a lot of effort and actually make sense with Battletech.
Let's do something that's faster, a lot less effort, and is completely made up instead.
Thus, the heat scale chart was born!

[Unbound Inferno]

Homeless Bill, on 31 July 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

What you people don't seem to get is that hardpoint restrictions aren't "simple." In terms of development time, it would be a huge pain in the ***.

I like the idea of hardpoint restrictions, but people need to stop pretending it's something simple to code. Working within the existing mechlab, I can practically guarantee it's not.

Oh, I know the dev's will have a headache the size of... well its not pretty. Didn't mean to imply they'll have a nice time of it.

But it simplifies it for the consumer side, along with restricting certain limitations that can cause some serious issues - as in the PPC stalker mess.

I know perfectly well the coding side is more of a mess than anything else. There may be a way to simplify it by the existing Crit system, but that's their problem honestly. Our problem is the result of imperfect balancing with restrictive single hardpoints and the result it causes with mechs carrying what they shouldn't. That's got to change since the omni-mech construction we've got now is a real problem that just magnifies the cracks that exist.

El Bandito, on 31 July 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Implement convergence first IMO.

At least fix the damn hit-reg fail.

I'd love to, with Group Fire limitations (another dev headache, but pilot/builder simple I hope) thanks to a Targeting Computer and Artemis tweak: http://mwomercs.com/...temis-included/

Yes, another dev headache, but worth it I think for simplifying pinpoint alphastrikes with restrictions that really limit what can do it with enough downsides to offset the advantage of tearing a component off easily.

Dracol, on 31 July 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I'm going to approach the counter argument from the business angle....

One avenue of revenue PGI has selected is premium time. In order to make the c-bill bonus worth while, players require a variety of items to purchase.By designing the hard point system they have, players have flexibility to try out a variety of builds on a single chasis. This increases the c-bills used outside of mech purchases.

If they were to limit hard points further, this would decrease the demand for premium time. Fewer options per chassis would reduce the amount of c-bills spent per chassis.

Another benifit to the greater variety of options available to spend on a single mech chassis is the availability of the MC purchasable chassis. If a player spends a lot of c-bills trying differant things on one chassis, when it comes time to level a new one, or when a new mech is released, the player has the incentive to spend real cash on purchasing the new chassis.

If a player did not have the option to build a variety of mechs, which would happen if a limited hard point setup was initialized, then c-bills would stockpile there by reducing the incentive to spend real world cash on premium time and/or MC mechs.

Valid argument, but perhaps they should alter what they are marketing the C-Bil/MC/money aspect better? I don't buy "Premium Time" cause if its worth it, I'll spend the time on it - and quite honestly, the product is not worth it now.

[Roughneck45]

Hardpoint restrictions would solve our current boating problem.

HOWEVER

It would just evolve into certain variants being the boats, and then those being the only optimal mechs. It wouldn't eliminate the problem, it would just change the flavor of it and limit our customization in the process.

[Unbound Inferno]

Roughneck45, on 31 July 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Hardpoint restrictions would solve our current boating problem.

HOWEVER

It would just evolve into certain variants being the boats, and then those being the only optimal mechs. It wouldn't eliminate the problem, it would just change the flavor of it and limit our customization in the process.

True, to a degree - but what would we see? The only mechs that "boat" Direct Fire weapons that are the key problems (PPC/Gauss/AC-20) are Assaults. Big, lumbering, easy-to-hit, Wide as an Awesome... or rather that one too... that are walking targets and actually poor at brawling against a good skilled brawler.

Or gimp the team cause the team is trudging at 60 kph and a light pack fastcaps behind them.


I see problems, sure - for the non-tactical thinkers, random PUGs and ignorant newcomers (sorry i can't say that too nice) but it opens up huge wide options for viable teams. Support would have a meaning needing a team mixed of Scout, Brawlers and something Heavy or Assault, not a one-in-all answer.

I think it would be a great idea honestly. Cause I don't think a MW;O environment match could be won easily with two competitive teams as one mech chassis vs a good coordinated variety.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 31 July 2013 - 05:44 PM.

[Sybreed]

Homeless Bill, on 31 July 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

What you people don't seem to get is that hardpoint restrictions aren't "simple." In terms of development time, it would be a huge pain in the ***.

I like the idea of hardpoint restrictions, but people need to stop pretending it's something simple to code. Working within the existing mechlab, I can practically guarantee it's not.

agreed. If only PGI took that time from the coding of the heat penalties....

Also, HB, we've asked for this for over a year. I'm no coder myself, but I'm thinking a dedicated team of 5 coders can do that in under a month.

Edited by Sybreed, 31 July 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Sybreed]

Dracol, on 31 July 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I'm going to approach the counter argument from the business angle....

One avenue of revenue PGI has selected is premium time. In order to make the c-bill bonus worth while, players require a variety of items to purchase.By designing the hard point system they have, players have flexibility to try out a variety of builds on a single chasis. This increases the c-bills used outside of mech purchases.

If they were to limit hard points further, this would decrease the demand for premium time. Fewer options per chassis would reduce the amount of c-bills spent per chassis.

Another benifit to the greater variety of options available to spend on a single mech chassis is the availability of the MC purchasable chassis. If a player spends a lot of c-bills trying differant things on one chassis, when it comes time to level a new one, or when a new mech is released, the player has the incentive to spend real cash on purchasing the new chassis.

If a player did not have the option to build a variety of mechs, which would happen if a limited hard point setup was initialized, then c-bills would stockpile there by reducing the incentive to spend real world cash on premium time and/or MC mechs.

interesting point of view. IMO, there might be new money sinks with CW incoming. Besides, I don't really see the point of using the premium time myself, I have 3 months of premium that I still haven,t touched and I don't see why I should. IMO, a new R&R 2.0 would help PGI have other money sinks.

About the "only canon boats will be used" perspective, I'm still thinking PGI also needs to fix convergence, otherwise what you say might be true. There needs to be some drawbacks to using a high alpha boating mech. A heat rework might be necessary.

[Roughneck45]

Unbound Inferno, on 31 July 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

I think it would be a great idea honestly. Cause I don't think a MW;O environment match could be won easily with two competitive teams as one mech chassis vs a good coordinated variety.

The competitive drops are the ones that would only be using those mechs, and it would stomp the mixed group. Even with the current system there are really only 5-7 mechs any competitive team will bring right now.

Spiders and cents because of their bugged hit boxes, 3D's Highlanders and stalkers to boat PPCs and jump snipe. Jenners and Jagers mixed in every once in a while.

I have no problems with hardpoint restrictions, I just don't think it would eliminate the problem all together, and I think PGI knows that. So, at this point, revamping their whole system to just deal with whatever problems the new one will bring doesn't sound worth their time.

But like i said, had they decided to go with restrictions from the start I would have been fine with it.

Edited by Roughneck45, 31 July 2013 - 05:54 PM.

[Tesunie]

Unbound Inferno, on 31 July 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

KISS. Odd idea for PGI it seems, ah well... might as well spell it out.
Battletech Tourneys have followed the "Stock IS/Clan" rules for fighting, why don't we?

It would simplify alot of the issue... but I know, we all want customization!


So, once again, I call for the much vaunted "Hardpoint Crit Sizes" idea!


Basically we do this; we take every mech chassis by their default Stock configuration - and use that as the determining factor for the available Hardpoint Crit Size where you can swap or alter what can be mounted on it.

This then limits what the options are for variant modifications by limiting what can - and can't - be mounted on it. It brings back the idea that certain mechs are meant for certain niche roles by the weapons they can carry and limit variables.

Want an Artemis-mounted Missile Laucher? Going to need to admit it'll be a smaller size.
Want PPC on that Stal.... but that AC40 Jag... oh nevermind.
How about that dangerous dual PPC Haunchback? Meet the ML Awesome!

Yeah, I see that as a bit more fun personally.

Umm... anyone asking for this recall MW3/4? Could barely get any customizing done, and "omni" mechs barely had any "omni" slots, usually in the worst place possible that got blown off with ease (looking at you Vulture and your omnirack nose gun with little to no armor).

Personally, I don't mind the current hard point system. What I think would help fix a lot of the "high alpha builds" better than a heat penalty would be to make weapon convergence less accurate. Have your reticule turn gold once it has a full lock, and only with a gold reticule would all weapons hit that point. Otherwise, they would be spread out, which may or may not hit (probably shooting directly forwards from their mounting points, instead of crossing and aiming towards the point). This would make high alpha builds still useful, but a chain fire would be less risky.

However, PGI has gone with a heat penalty. We might as well accept that and make farther suggestions based on this idea. Anything else will probably not be accepted. (Convergence can still be added in easily enough. Different weapon size hard points, not so much.)

If you really want to see hard point size restrictions, play MW3/4 (definitely 4). Then come back and state what you think. I'm not going to say it's a bad system overall, but it isn't exactly a system people liked either. Very hard to work with. Mechlab would have to completely change, as well as all current mechs every player owns cleaned out/replaced/set to default. Imagine how many more people will be outraged that their mech they so lovingly pieced together and refined over days/weeks/months of work is now gone. Personally, I wouldn't be happy, even if I did go on. I could see a lot of other people out right quitting over such a thing.


Edit: For Grammar. Need to proof read these better. Geesh.

Edited by Tesunie, 31 July 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Dracol, on 31 July 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I'm going to approach the counter argument from the business angle....

So will I.

What's killing my willingness to purchase any more MC is the weapon boating, bipolar weapons balancing, high pinpoint alpha strikes still possible, hitreg failures, and then their ignoring of serious, well thought out, feedback (convergence, hardpoint sizing, ECM changes) and their refusal to acknowledge their design mistakes, instead piling up bandaid features like this heat scaling system. PGI have an IP that I love, but the way they are handling the community's leaves me with little reason to invest further real money into them.

It's not that coding these features is hard, it's that they won't. That would be admitting that they're wrong, and that's just not an option for them, is it.

So restricting hardpoint sizes will stagnate and shift the metagame? Let's think about the metagame over the past year:

ECM was released ... a 4 man team of 3L Ravens could wipe out the opposition. ECM was mandatory to the point where organised competitive games would restrict the number of ECM in a match.

PPCs were buffed five ways (refire rate, projectile speed, heat, hitreg, anti-ECM) ... Stalkers can mount them above their heads, becoming the ultimate pinpoint sniper.

LRMs were buffed ... LRM boating could pull 1000+ damage easily.


So the stagnation exists right now. Let's think about a world with restricted hard point sizes:

The premier PPC boat becomes the Awesome, which lacks the advantages of the Stalker, making it a bit fairer. (Then PGI can bring out the Awesome 9Q haha!)

The LRM Stalker will have less missiles to take into the field. The restriction binds the upper limit of weaponry, while leaving room for plenty of different combinations.

It changes the playstyle away from a sniper game. Mechs engage in the style they were built for. No one mech is then completely specialised, because in the BT universe mechs are designed to handle a variety of situations, while in MWO mechs are being customised for 15 minute 8-man matches.

In fact, PGI will have created a BETTER business model, because they have more control over the weapon variety each mech boasts, encouraging people to buy more variants for different purposes, encouraging people to spend more MC and CBills. Rebalancing of weaponry becomes easier because the extreme cases no longer exist.


Then PGI create an assault mech that boats PPC and Gauss on periscopic arms, mounts the head high up, is super slender and hard to hit, with Jump Jets. Then PGI sells it for lots of MC. Genius.

[Unbound Inferno]

Haitchpeasauce, on 31 July 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

The premier PPC boat becomes the Awesome, which lacks the advantages of the Stalker, making it a bit fairer. (Then PGI can bring out the Awesome 9Q haha!)

I had to look that up:

• AWS-9Q - A basic upgrade introduced in 3057^[6] for the 8Q and 9M Awesome, the heat sinks are upgraded to double heat sinks and are reduced to nineteen. The saved weight is used to add a fourth PPC to the 'Mech as well as a Guardian ECM Suite. BV (1.0) = 1,623^[3][11], BV (2.0) = 1,875^[12]

If Evil had a name, that would fit it. 4x PPC, 19 DHS standard with an ECM!

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 31 July 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Tesunie]

Haitchpeasauce, on 31 July 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

[/size]
So will I.

What's killing my willingness to purchase any more MC is the weapon boating, bipolar weapons balancing, high pinpoint alpha strikes still possible, hitreg failures, and then their ignoring of serious, well thought out, feedback (convergence, hardpoint sizing, ECM changes) and their refusal to acknowledge their design mistakes, instead piling up bandaid features like this heat scaling system. PGI have an IP that I love, but the way they are handling the community's leaves me with little reason to invest further real money into them.

It's not that coding these features is hard, it's that they won't. That would be admitting that they're wrong, and that's just not an option for them, is it.

So restricting hardpoint sizes will stagnate and shift the metagame? Let's think about the metagame over the past year:

ECM was released ... a 4 man team of 3L Ravens could wipe out the opposition. ECM was mandatory to the point where organised competitive games would restrict the number of ECM in a match.

PPCs were buffed five ways (refire rate, projectile speed, heat, hitreg, anti-ECM) ... Stalkers can mount them above their heads, becoming the ultimate pinpoint sniper.

LRMs were buffed ... LRM boating could pull 1000+ damage easily.


So the stagnation exists right now. Let's think about a world with restricted hard point sizes:

The premier PPC boat becomes the Awesome, which lacks the advantages of the Stalker, making it a bit fairer. (Then PGI can bring out the Awesome 9Q haha!)

The LRM Stalker will have less missiles to take into the field. The restriction binds the upper limit of weaponry, while leaving room for plenty of different combinations.

It changes the playstyle away from a sniper game. Mechs engage in the style they were built for. No one mech is then completely specialised, because in the BT universe mechs are designed to handle a variety of situations, while in MWO mechs are being customised for 15 minute 8-man matches.

In fact, PGI will have created a BETTER business model, because they have more control over the weapon variety each mech boasts, encouraging people to buy more variants for different purposes, encouraging people to spend more MC and CBills. Rebalancing of weaponry becomes easier because the extreme cases no longer exist.


Then PGI create an assault mech that boats PPC and Gauss on periscopic arms, mounts the head high up, is super slender and hard to hit, with Jump Jets. Then PGI sells it for lots of MC. Genius.

I... kinda don't think so. If you have just enough "slots" of hardpoints (like MW4), then it will be very restricting. The Jenner I am currently running could not exist. It's got a modest single large laser (crit slots of 2 med lasers) a med laser (basically one laser stays as default) and 2 small lasers (which would over exceed the energy hard points of 4 hard points). Is one extra small laser really that scary to you?

Then, you have another problem. What makes the Jenner D and the Jenner K different from each other in a hard point standing. They would be the exact same chassis, only different is the K comes with FF (or was it Endo, not sure) built in. Unless you also want to restrict Endo and FF to specific mechs as well...

Then you have the Cicada 3C. A 3 crit energy hard point and only 2 ballistic hard points. Not even enough to change MGs to, well anything else. All you could do was change the PPC to an ERPPC or any other, smaller, weapon point. It would be permanently locked into a 2 MG and some energy weapon (probably biggest you can fit which is standard, maybe upgraded to ERPPC). Sounds like that mech is gonna be a ton of laughs.

A Hunchback 4P can have 3 large lasers in that hunch, but it's either going to be that, 2 PPCs or a bunch of weaker, smaller weapons.

A Hard point restriction like I've been hearing as an idea (placing just enough and no extra from their stock standard configuration) would be so limiting, you either go stock weapons, or get weaker. Very few mechs could then actually have anything customized.

This sounds more like a "I want Stock mechs only as a battle type", which that I would be all for. Have a battle mode that only stock, unchanged mechs can participate. You would so see me in there. However, a hard point system like what I am presuming (correct me if I'm wrong) would be very debilitating, and not helpful. Oh, and a Splat Cat, would still be able to be created. So some mech types would still be as strong and unchanged. If anything, I feel it would reduce the selection of mechs most people would pick up and play.

[Sybreed]

Tesunie, on 31 July 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

A Hard point restriction like I've been hearing as an idea (placing just enough and no extra from their stock standard configuration) would be so limiting, you either go stock weapons, or get weaker. Very few mechs could then actually have anything customized.

Wrong. You can actually retrofit some mechs so they fill slightly altered roles:

Atlas-D-DC. Get rid of LRM-20, get another SRM 6 + SRM 4, change your lasers for pulse lasers. You got a serious brawler right there.

Cat K2: Switch PPCs for LLs, switch MGs for AC/2s.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a Hunch 4P pimping 2 PPCs in its RT. A fair trade-off for the 6 Medium lasers and still shows a pretty big weak spot.

The stalker though, it could use a max of 2 PPCs (replacing LLs) and 2 LLs (replacing medium lasers). It could fill more of a ranged assaulter. It would still have room for LRMs or SRMs.

What I'm saying is PGI doesn't have to follow a strick formula. They can use hardpoint sizes so they make sense and keep the intended role of the mech, while permitting some customization without being so easy to abuse as they are now. They don't need to do exactly like what MW4 did, they have the opportunity to do better.

Edited by Sybreed, 31 July 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Unbound Inferno, on 31 July 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

Oh, I know the dev's will have a headache the size of... well its not pretty. Didn't mean to imply they'll have a nice time of it.

But it simplifies it for the consumer side, along with restricting certain limitations that can cause some serious issues - as in the PPC stalker mess.

I know perfectly well the coding side is more of a mess than anything else. There may be a way to simplify it by the existing Crit system, but that's their problem honestly. Our problem is the result of imperfect balancing with restrictive single hardpoints and the result it causes with mechs carrying what they shouldn't. That's got to change since the omni-mech construction we've got now is a real problem that just magnifies the cracks that exist.

Again, I'd like to see it, but it doesn't solve any urgent problems. Sure, you might get rid of a few of the most atrocious boats currently in the game, but plenty of stock 'mechs are filled with cheese.

Diversity also isn't an urgent problem right now. It might be in another 6 or 12 months, but it's simply not right now.

I'd rather they fix balance problems instead of sweeping them under the rug for another few months.

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Also, HB, we've asked for this for over a year. I'm no coder myself, but I'm thinking a dedicated team of 5 coders can do that in under a month.

And I've been one of those people supporting it. As someone that actually programs games for a living, I'd say you're probably not too far off. It would wildly vary based on how messy or modular it is, but it's certainly no UI 2.0.

That said, I think every second of their time is precious, and hardpoint restrictions serve no immediate purpose. You can say it would fix the current meta, but you'd be lying. It would only cover it up for a few months. Once they start releasing 'mechs with cheesy stock builds, we'd be right back to square one (but even worse, because only one or two 'mechs would be able to do it).

I want hardpoint restrictions, but only after weapons / alphas are balanced out in some legitimate manner. Not that that will happen either =P

[FupDup]

Dracol, on 31 July 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I'm going to approach the counter argument from the business angle....

One avenue of revenue PGI has selected is premium time. In order to make the c-bill bonus worth while, players require a variety of items to purchase.By designing the hard point system they have, players have flexibility to try out a variety of builds on a single chasis. This increases the c-bills used outside of mech purchases.

If they were to limit hard points further, this would decrease the demand for premium time. Fewer options per chassis would reduce the amount of c-bills spent per chassis.

Another benifit to the greater variety of options available to spend on a single mech chassis is the availability of the MC purchasable chassis. If a player spends a lot of c-bills trying differant things on one chassis, when it comes time to level a new one, or when a new mech is released, the player has the incentive to spend real cash on purchasing the new chassis.

If a player did not have the option to build a variety of mechs, which would happen if a limited hard point setup was initialized, then c-bills would stockpile there by reducing the incentive to spend real world cash on premium time and/or MC mechs.

You have it backwards. Because our current mechs are so flexible, there is less incentive to buy more than one mech within a given weight bracket because they can each perform the same functions. For instance, why should I buy Awesomes if my Stalkers can do everything that they can (and better)? Why should I buy Commandos if Jenners or even my Ravens can do the same things (and more)?

Making mechs more unique gives people a reason to actually buy more robots (AND MORE MECH BAYS!!!) and thus increases the need for Premium Time. Which is cheaper, buying a few new weapons for an existing robot, or buying an entirely new robot? (Rhetorical question, because the answer is really obvious). This also increases the need for XP in order to master each of the new mechs, whereas letting people build anything on a single mech doesn't require additional XP once master is reached.

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 07:09 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Homeless Bill, on 31 July 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Again, I'd like to see it, but it doesn't solve any urgent problems. Sure, you might get rid of a few of the most atrocious boats currently in the game, but plenty of stock 'mechs are filled with cheese.

Diversity also isn't an urgent problem right now. It might be in another 6 or 12 months, but it's simply not right now.

I'd rather they fix balance problems instead of sweeping them under the rug for another few months.

If they were going to fix balance issues we've been pointing out - they would have already.

As for your stock cheese: I have no issues for some key reasons:

Thunder Hawk is 100 tons, bound to be massive and easy to hit - and its as slow as an Atlas.

Hunchback II C - I see two problems; XL and Hunchback Side Torsos. 'nuff said I think.

Warhawk - no real problem with that one; see the gun placements? It can't hill-hump with that.

Devastator - another 100 tonner, slow as an atlas and I see no issues with Assaults using that.


So, no, that is fine. But the PPC Stalker hill humping with no real damage? Victor/Highlanders poptarting? Dual AC-20 Jaggermechs that outrun most other opponents? Those I have problems with.

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Cat K2: Switch PPCs for LLs, switch MGs for AC/2s.

I would actually see a K2 with either 6x MLs and 2x AC-2s, or a mix of 2xLPL+2xMPL in the arms too.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 31 July 2013 - 07:23 PM.

[Sybreed]

Homeless Bill, on 31 July 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Again, I'd like to see it, but it doesn't solve any urgent problems. Sure, you might get rid of a few of the most atrocious boats currently in the game, but plenty of stock 'mechs are filled with cheese.

Diversity also isn't an urgent problem right now. It might be in another 6 or 12 months, but it's simply not right now.

I'd rather they fix balance problems instead of sweeping them under the rug for another few months.


And I've been one of those people supporting it. As someone that actually programs games for a living, I'd say you're probably not too far off. It would wildly vary based on how messy or modular it is, but it's certainly no UI 2.0.

That said, I think every second of their time is precious, and hardpoint restrictions serve no immediate purpose. You can say it would fix the current meta, but you'd be lying. It would only cover it up for a few months. Once they start releasing 'mechs with cheesy stock builds, we'd be right back to square one (but even worse, because only one or two 'mechs would be able to do it).

I want hardpoint restrictions, but only after weapons / alphas are balanced out in some legitimate manner. Not that that will happen either =P

hey, if they ever implement hardpoint sizes with your solution to the boating problem, I'd throw them 200$ immediately. I know hardpoint sizes wouldn't fix canon boats, I've said it multiple times, which is why I also ask for other fixes like yours or DocBach's reticule solution. But, it would at least give a little RP twist to the game, which wouldn't hurt at all...