131 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Insanity, I know. If one weapon system is good, then the logical conclusion is that we want to mount 5 of that same system, right?

Except that very style of building is generally where the imbalance creeps in. People cried about PPCs being OP. And yes, getting nailed by 4-6 per mech as the sky was filled with PPC spam, it was less than fun. Right now, people cry similarly about LRMs.

And just as before, people are wrong. Or, to be more charitable, thanks to PGI's inherent programming laziness, have been trained to look at the symptom, and overreact to that, instead of the underlying problems.

Riddle me this: If you take a single example of a PPC, or a Single LRM launcher, SSRM, or UAC, etc, do you dominate the game? Even in pairs? (a Pair of PPC and a Pair of AC5 WITH JJs is a different issue, but related). Doubtful, or K2s would be uber-feared. One needs to check the viability of the weapon system, by it's weight, crits and such, individually.
Kids, it's the unlimited hardpoint system (and convergence) that is the core of the issue, not that "LRMs and PPC" are so uber powerful. Hard point sizes would improve role diversity and improve balance by minimizing boating. People would actually have more viable options. The only people who lose out would be the poptarting minmax warriors, and those are the very players who are most egregiously responsible for breaking balance to begin with.

Seriously, the constant yo yo battle cry of "Nerf this" needs to stop. The more they nerf, the more they make convoluted bandaids, the more broken the entire game becomes. If you have to QQ, cry or complain, educate yourselves to the actual problems, and make a bunch of noise to PGI to finally fix those. Pinpoint convergence of multiple weapon systems to one spot, and unlimited hardpoints are the problems, the weapons, be it lrms, pppcs, etc, front loaded damaged, et al, are just symptoms.

[Dock Steward]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Insanity, I know. If one weapon system is good, then the logical conclusion is that we want to mount 5 of that same system, right?

Except that very style of building is generally where the imbalance creeps in. People cried about PPCs being OP. And yes, getting nailed by 4-6 per mech as the sky was filled with PPC spam, it was less than fun. Right now, people cry similarly about LRMs.

And just as before, people are wrong. Or, to be more charitable, thanks to PGI's inherent programming laziness, have been trained to look at the symptom, and overreact to that, instead of the underlying problems.

Riddle me this: If you take a single example of a PPC, or a Single LRM launcher, SSRM, or UAC, etc, do you dominate the game? Even in pairs? (a Pair of PPC and a Pair of AC5 WITH JJs is a different issue, but related). Doubtful, or K2s would be uber-feared. One needs to check the viability of the weapon system, by it's weight, crits and such, individually.
Kids, it's the unlimited hardpoint system (and convergence) that is the core of the issue, not that "LRMs and PPC" are so uber powerful. Hard point sizes would improve role diversity and improve balance by minimizing boating. People would actually have more viable options. The only people who lose out would be the poptarting minmax warriors, and those are the very players who are most egregiously responsible for breaking balance to begin with.

Seriously, the constant yo yo battle cry of "Nerf this" needs to stop. The more they nerf, the more they make convoluted bandaids, the more broken the entire game becomes. If you have to QQ, cry or complain, educate yourselves to the actual problems, and make a bunch of noise to PGI to finally fix those. Pinpoint convergence of multiple weapon systems to one spot, and unlimited hardpoints are the problems, the weapons, be it lrms, pppcs, etc, front loaded damaged, et al, are just symptoms.

This subject always divides me. You're not wrong about the hard point system, it certainly does open up doors for imbalance. The thing is though, I really like spending time in the mechlab, customizing. It's not so I can min/max everything, but just because it offers tremendous variety. In a game with such limited maps and game modes, the mech customizing is really one of the few things that keeps me interested and playing.

If the hard point system changed, I wouldn't cry about it, but if changed in a way that really downgraded the level of customizing potential, I might get bored quickly.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dock Steward, on 22 March 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

This subject always divides me. You're not wrong about the hard point system, it certainly does open up doors for imbalance. The thing is though, I really like spending time in the mechlab, customizing. It's not so I can min/max everything, but just because it offers tremendous variety. In a game with such limited maps and game modes, the mech customizing is really one of the few things that keeps me interested and playing.

If the hard point system changed, I wouldn't cry about it, but if changed in a way that really downgraded the level of customizing potential, I might get bored quickly.

With sized hardpoints, you can STILL customize. That is the part I don't get how people think. The difference is a Stalker with 1 Large Laser and 2 Mediums in one arm is no longer mounting 3 PPC, or a PPC and a Large laser. But it is mounting a PPC, ER PPC; Large Laser, ER LARGE, Large Pulse, and then 2 Medium, small, pulse, TAG, etc.

IMO, minimizing boating is not anywhere near the same as limiting things. IN fact, it opens up all the chassis, because now the unique configurations really give one a reason to own say, all 3 Kintaros, without running the same basic build on all 3. Hard Point sizes make the Awesome semi viable again, by making it one of the few able to carry 3 heavy energy weapons.

Properly done, sized hardpoints would also eliminate the need for Ghost Heat. Seems like a good enough reason right there.

I like to customize, but I believe in role warfare, and each chassis was designed for specific roles. Modifying them within that role is fine. But a paper armored anti air support mech should never be a front line, dial ac20 toting brawler. The 65 ton brawler should be the Thunderbolt, with the Jager being mostly based around long range direct fire, the Catapult around various missile loadouts (save the K2, of course). Now all 3 mechs have their uses, and which one you choose to drive is based off which role you want to play.

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

if the hardpoint are sized, it kills customization, as the choices are already made for you

[Bishop Steiner]

Peekaboo I C JU, on 22 March 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

if the hardpoint are sized, it kills customization, as the choices are already made for you

No, it actually doesn't. It does limit it some, which actually enhances the usefulness of differing variants. As has been explained time and again. The only people hurt by hard point sizes are those who minmax boat everything, and minmax boating is what is the chief issue with weapon balance.

[Eddrick]

I'm totaly in favor of limiting the size of hardpoints. It helps set Mechs apart. Especialy, helps the Awesome. It also, helps encorage mixed builds. But, most of all, IT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR GHOST HEAT!

I normaly don't stray very far from the Stock weapons on a Mech, anyway. I tryed using the same weapons on some of the Stalker Variants and it drove me insane using that many of the exact same build.

[ScorpionNinja]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

With sized hardpoints, you can STILL customize. That is the part I don't get how people think. The difference is a Stalker with 1 Large Laser and 2 Mediums in one arm is no longer mounting 3 PPC, or a PPC and a Large laser. But it is mounting a PPC, ER PPC; Large Laser, ER LARGE, Large Pulse, and then 2 Medium, small, pulse, TAG, etc.

IMO, minimizing boating is not anywhere near the same as limiting things. IN fact, it opens up all the chassis, because now the unique configurations really give one a reason to own say, all 3 Kintaros, without running the same basic build on all 3. Hard Point sizes make the Awesome semi viable again, by making it one of the few able to carry 3 heavy energy weapons.

Properly done, sized hardpoints would also eliminate the need for Ghost Heat. Seems like a good enough reason right there.

I like to customize, but I believe in role warfare, and each chassis was designed for specific roles. Modifying them within that role is fine. But a paper armored anti air support mech should never be a front line, dial ac20 toting brawler. The 65 ton brawler should be the Thunderbolt, with the Jager being mostly based around long range direct fire, the Catapult around various missile loadouts (save the K2, of course). Now all 3 mechs have their uses, and which one you choose to drive is based off which role you want to play.

Yep... and think about AWESOMEs, for example!

AWESOMEs are supposed to be the "PPC boat", but with the current crap hardpoint system... a ******* Trenchbucket can mount 3 PPCs (1 LA, 2RA) with jumpjets and be just as effective as an AWESOME as far as PPCs go.
Thats broken and ****** up.
That DOES NOT MAKE THE AWESOME UNIQUE in regaurds to PPCs with the current hardpoint system!

This game NEEDs to STICK to MOST of Battletech Lore, to keep that Battletech/Mechwarrior FEELING and FLAVOR. Not be like COD and other games.
Cuz that makes MWO DIFFERENT and sets it Aside!!!

Edited by ScorpionNinja, 22 March 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[ScorpionNinja]

I will also add... with PGI's current hard point system... all mechs are basically "OMNI" mechs. WHY even have different variants, REALLY, WHY?

Ohhh this mech can mount 3 ENERGY.
This one can mount 4 ENERGY.

How about you make it so the 4 energy slot one has BT lore flavor and can only mount say ONE BIG (PPC/LPL,LL) and has to use 3 ML or 3 SLs as back ups.

While the 3 energy slot one, can mount 2 BIG ENERGY (PPC,LL,LPL), then 1 ML?

Both mechs are kinda equal in terms of firepower, but maybe on has more LEFT SIDE energy weapons, to suit players that PREFER mechs with leftside weapons?
Ditto for RIGHT SIDE weapons?

[Wintersdark]

Bishop, you're absolutely right about the problem. However, hard point sizes have their own inherent problems.

First and foremost, it effectively does kill customization. Generally speaking, most players can only use 3 weapon groups effectively, maybe 4. So, there needs to be a level of boating to cram diverse weapon types into usable groups.

Second, you end up with a similar situation where perhaps you're not boating 4 Big Guns, and instead you're boating Little Guns. The end result is going to be the same though, and tears will flow.

I'd comfortably say most players don't give two s**ts what mechs where designed for in tabletop, And put zero value on that. Further many of those designs/roles didn't work in TT and/or wouldn't work in MWO. It'd make more chassis than now "useless" (you know what I mean by that). An anti-air fire support mech has no place in mwo at all, for example. Stock - or even remotely stock-ish - Jagermechs would be so terrible as to be totally worthless here.

Keeping hard point types but adding hard point sizes would utterly ruin the game for me, personally. Mech customization is more fun than actual gameplay for me

Removing types but adding sizes presents substantial gameplay balance problems and would require major art changes. Its just not going to happen, too major a change to what people have invested many dollars in. Balance changes are expected, but massive changes to how they work? Not so much.

I agree that the game would probably be better if it had started that way, or at least since Open Beta, but its just too late now.

[Bishop Steiner]

Eddrick, on 22 March 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

I'm totaly in favor of limiting the size of hardpoints. It helps set Mechs apart. Especialy, helps the Awesome. It also, helps encorage mixed builds. But, most of all, IT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR GHOST HEAT!

I normaly don't stray very far from the Stock weapons on a Mech, anyway. I tryed using the same weapons on some of the Stalker Variants and it drove me insane using that many of the exact same build.

Give the man a cookie! Exactly the point. But it's far easier for people to look at the symptom....er FLAVOR of the month, and QQ about that then actually do a in depth look at the underlying problems and how they interrelate to CAUSE the current cesspool of imbalance that Paul's only answer is to nerf/buff/nerf/buff/hard counter/convoluted "solution" to things.

Whereas instead, take the time to properly code TWO bloody fixes (Sized Hardpoints, something many of the long time players have begged fro since early CB, and opposed by the "esport" crowd, because minmaxxing is the hear of "esports" (bloody oxymoron if one ever existed) and fixing the Convergence Issue, be it through any number of methods), and not only save the flavor that is Battletech, and makes the game and IP different from say, Titanfall or Hawken, but fix 95% of the balance issues to boot.

[Slashmckill]

100% agree, chosing a chasis is part of customization, which most people are completely oblivious to. With the current system you don't chose the chasis that best suits you, you pick the chasis with the most benefits and nothing more. (it makes having different varients downright pointless in most cases)

Edited by Slashmckill, 22 March 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[3rdworld]

Dragon Slayer
Protector
Firebrand
Banshee 3E

Just off of the top of my head, run ballistic/s & PPC/s in their stock configurations. Not to mention the can of worms that arrives when the clans get here.

Edited by 3rdworld, 22 March 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

good thoughts, but disagree

just 2 pts brother man.

1) This IS SPARTA..... er, MechWarrior. So I don't give two twists what the CoD "E-sport" crowd thinks about the lore, fluff, TT stuff. That is the BASIS for the whole IP, and without it, this is just generic mech shooter. There are currently 2 big budget Generic Mech Shooters, Titanfall and Hawken. Let those who want to E-sport focus on those. This is an existing and storied IP, and should cater to those who actually want to play that IP, first and foremost. Sounds harsh, but it's true. You don't go play a Star Wars games, then go and toss out all the features that make it Star wars, simply to make it more appealing to those who want to play Unreal Tournament.

2) Again, no, it does not kill customization. It opens up the doors to making all the chassis and variants and roles useful. It does indeed mean that not every mech can out Awesome and Awesome, but all that does is make chassis like the Awesome obsolete. All "unlimited" customization does is lead inevitably to minmaxxing, and thus, to compete, "unlimited customization" is a myth anyhow, because "building what you "want" just leads to getting killed over and over again, and a person eventually either caving to the Meta, or quitting the game, in which case, the "unlimited" customization is pointless, anyhow.

When is the last time you saw any serious Awesome usage (aside from the LRMboats 8r that are out right now)? Trebuchets? CN9-AL? (heck, non Zombie Cents, period). Any non Firestarter ot Jenner Lights without ECM? Most HBKs and Kintaros are obsoleted by the 55 ton triplets, and even most variants of those are ignored. Unlimited customization has led to maybe a dozen"viable" chassis, with the occasional rogue and outlier.

That is NOT opening options my friend, but limiting them.

Now if the Awesome was the only (current) IS, Mech to pack 3 PPCs? Would we have any need for Ghost Heat? Nope. and even with suboptimal hitboxes, people would consider the tradeoff worth it to get that weapon system. Is removing the BoomJager or the GaussKitty going to break the game? Or does it remove the need for such heavy nerfs on those weapon systems? Nerfs, which I might add, much like the recent nerfs to the VTR and HGN have done NOTHING to actually stop people from using them in the manner that caused the nerfs to be added int he first place.

I've been working the angels on this problem for over 2 years now. Sized Hardpoints improve customization far more than they hurt it. What they do cause is people to think about the ROLE of a specific chassis before buying it, because one no longer would be able to so drastically change it. But then, how is that bad' If one wants an MBT, they buy an Abrams, one doesn't add a Rhinemetal 120mm smootbore to a Stryker. If one wants a Flakpanzer Gepard one doesn't slap two 35mm autocannon to an M109 Howitzer. One selects the appropriate chassis for siad role, then customizes it within that role.

[Grey Black]

Hey, while we're playing shoulda woulda coulda, can I propose a fix? Instead of sized hardpoints, we implement a change to how many hardpoints a weapon requires. For example, a Gauss Rifle would take 2 ballistic hardpoints, whereas the AC10 only takes 1. The PPC takes 3 hardpoints to the large lasers' 2. This would make your choices more meaningful than simply size. Do I want to bring 3 medium lasers or 1 PPC? 1 AC20 or 3 AC2? Maybe make machine guns (for example) take up a half a hardpoint, making them a more viable option for lights.

I agree the hardpoints system is broken, but what the fix is beyond our control.

EDIT: I can size autocannons!

Edited by Grey Black, 22 March 2014 - 09:34 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

3rdworld, on 22 March 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Dragon Slayer
Protector
Firebrand
Banshee 3E

Just off of the top of my head, run ballistic/s & PPC/s in their stock configurations. Not to mention the can of worms that arrives when the clans get here.

not sure what argument you are trying to make with those examples, pro or anti?

Cuz if anti, would point out that 3 of those can't poptart, which is where the ac/PPC abuse comes in (and the ppc ac2 firebrand is an overheat machine waiting to happen) and the Dragon Slayer would only be able to mount a single PPC, and it would not be on the same side as the ACs, thus nerfing half the reason that chassis is chosen. And none of the other Victors could carry PPCs at all. (and a 2 PPC Victor is superior to a 3 PPC Awesome currently in every way).

Grey Black, on 22 March 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Hey, while we're playing shoulda woulda coulda, can I propose a fix? Instead of sized hardpoints, we implement a change to how many hardpoints a weapon requires. For example, a Gauss Rifle would take 2 ballistic hardpoints, whereas the AC10 only takes 1. The PPC takes 3 hardpoints to the large lasers' 2. This would make your choices more meaningful than simply size. Do I want to bring 3 medium lasers or 1 PPC? 1 AC20 or 3 AC20? Maybe make machine guns (for example) take up a half a hardpoint, making them a more viable option for lights.

I agree the hardpoints system is broken, but what the fix is beyond our control.

not an crazy idea, though it's is in many ways just dressing up sized hardpoints a little different. Would also mention that in virtually every HP discussion, one has always pretty much suggested that one could always mount small weapons in large hardpoints, but not vice versa. Your suggestion allows much the same concept, but might be a less "radical" coding revision. I would be content with either, TBH.

What I am not content with is the current nerf buff yo yo that fixes nothing.

[Grey Black]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

not sure what argument you are trying to make with those examples, pro or anti?

Cuz if anti, would point out that 3 of those can't poptart, which is where the ac/PPC abuse comes in (and the ppc ac2 firebrand is an overheat machine waiting to happen) and the Dragon Slayer would only be able to mount a single PPC, and it would not be on the same side as the ACs, thus nerfing half the reason that chassis is chosen. And none of the other Victors could carry PPCs at all. (and a 2 PPC Victor is superior to a 3 PPC Awesome currently in every way).


not an crazy idea, though it's is in many ways just dressing up sized hardpoints a little different. Would also mention that in virtually every HP discussion, one has always pretty much suggested that one could always mount small weapons in large hardpoints, but not vice versa. Your suggestion allows much the same concept, but might be a less "radical" coding revision. I would be content with either, TBH.

What I am not content with is the current nerf buff yo yo that fixes nothing.

Agreed, the yo yo is out of control and needs to be reigned in. My proposition allows a more varied choice than simply"large hardpoints or small? " Let's look at LRMs for example. In the current system, an LRM 20 and LRM5 take the same number of hardpoints. In my system, we can make the choice become, "The LRM5 costs 1 hardpoints, but the LRM20 costs 3. I can effectively fire more LRMs per hardpoint if I take the 20, but it's much heavier and I need more criticals. But, because I only have 3 missile hardpoints, I can either choose a large LRM with no backup or a small one with some SSRMs. Hmm..."

[Rebas Kradd]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

If you have to QQ, cry or complain, educate yourselves to the actual problems, and make a bunch of noise to PGI to finally fix those. Pinpoint convergence of multiple weapon systems to one spot, and unlimited hardpoints are the problems, the weapons, be it lrms, pppcs, etc, front loaded damaged, et al, are just symptoms.

They're not going to change core systems and revamp the entire game from the ground up.

Nor is it "laziness" for them to be averse to such a root canal.

[Bishop Steiner]

Rebas Kradd, on 22 March 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

They're not going to change core systems and revamp the entire game from the ground up.

Nor is it "laziness" for them to be averse to such a root canal.

since the core players have been telling them it was needed since early closed beta, yeah, it sorta is laziness, or arrogance. And it is hardly a "core system". It would take some coding, but nothing terribly egregious. And had they listened to the CB testers in the first place, we would not have Ghost Heat, the silly nerfbuff yo yo, and most current players would not be used to a broken system, so there would not be he QQ that any major overhaul now will engender.

But then, when one has cancer, one sometimes needs to have radical surgery to save the patient. The projected nerfs and buffs not only are doing nothing to improve the health of this game or community, but continues to drive away many players, thus threatening it's ability to survive, let alone flourish. One can keep trying fad diets and pretend to not be sick and hope it goes away, or one can address the disease head on, and hopefully root it out. Your choice.

BTW, when your tooth decays and abscesses, you might decide that root canal was not such a bad idea after all.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 March 2014 - 09:56 AM.

[Morashtak]

Dock Steward, on 22 March 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

If the hard point system changed, I wouldn't cry about it, but if changed in a way that really downgraded the level of customizing potential, I might get bored quickly.

One size larger, one size smaller customization would be an option. Give all weapons a size rating (small, medium, large, huge) based on slots and tonnage. Hard point types do not change, only addition is a size limitation.

Ex. MGs could only be replaced by AC/2s, AC/2s replaced only by MGs or AC/5s, AC5s replaced by AC/2s or AC/10s, AC/10s by AC/5s or AC/20s, AC/20s replaced by AC/10s. No more AC/20 Cats.

Engines restricted to 15% rating change, larger or smaller.

Ammo would have to be placed in the same or adjacent area, no legs.

Armor is left as is.

The above is open to negotiations.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

just 2 pts brother man.

1) This IS SPARTA..... er, MechWarrior. So I don't give two twists what the CoD "E-sport" crowd thinks about the lore, fluff, TT stuff. That is the BASIS for the whole IP, and without it, this is just generic mech shooter. There are currently 2 big budget Generic Mech Shooters, Titanfall and Hawken. Let those who want to E-sport focus on those. This is an existing and storied IP, and should cater to those who actually want to play that IP, first and foremost. Sounds harsh, but it's true. You don't go play a Star Wars games, then go and toss out all the features that make it Star wars, simply to make it more appealing to those who want to play Unreal Tournament.

I love Battletech and Mechwarrior, I love the IP. It's why I'm here - I *hate* PvP games, and yet I love MWO. I can't stand Titanfall or Hawken.

But, PGI has a line to walk. They can't afford to ignore the e-sport crowd wants. They need to draw a line in the sand, of course, or else Mechwarrior stops being Mechwarrior. But they've already drawn that line, and it's left original chassis roles outside in favour of players being able to adapt those chassis to the roles they wish.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that's how they've run things thus far, and it's a fundamental change that I don't think they'll ever make.

Quote

2) Again, no, it does not kill customization. It opens up the doors to making all the chassis and variants and roles useful. It does indeed mean that not every mech can out Awesome and Awesome, but all that does is make chassis like the Awesome obsolete. All "unlimited" customization does is lead inevitably to minmaxxing, and thus, to compete, "unlimited customization" is a myth anyhow, because "building what you "want" just leads to getting killed over and over again, and a person eventually either caving to the Meta, or quitting the game, in which case, the "unlimited" customization is pointless, anyhow.

Now, here's what I really wanted to address. While I think your assessment of the problem is absolutely correct, your passion on the subject and love of the fluff is blinding you to a constant of multiplayer game design.

So long as there is customization, there will be minmaxing. There will be meta builds you "have" to use to be competitive (again, I'm sure you understand my use of "have" and "competitive" there, we've similar views on the subject). Just that the targets will change.

Quote

When is the last time you saw any serious Awesome usage (aside from the LRMboats 8r that are out right now)? Trebuchets? CN9-AL? (heck, non Zombie Cents, period). Any non Firestarter ot Jenner Lights without ECM? Most HBKs and Kintaros are obsoleted by the 55 ton triplets, and even most variants of those are ignored. Unlimited customization has led to maybe a dozen"viable" chassis, with the occasional rogue and outlier.

This is happen with hardpoint sizes, too. WHICH chassis are "viable" will change, of course. Maybe - depending on PPC balance and hitboxes - Awesomes would become good, maybe not, but no matter what certain chassis/variants would be good and certain ones would be garbage. It would only change which are which.

It would all come down to which weapons work best in The New World Order, and then which particular chassis/variants can mount the most of those weapons... which is exactly what we have right now!

Quote

Now if the Awesome was the only (current) IS, Mech to pack 3 PPCs? Would we have any need for Ghost Heat? Nope. and even with suboptimal hitboxes, people would consider the tradeoff worth it to get that weapon system. Is removing the BoomJager or the GaussKitty going to break the game? Or does it remove the need for such heavy nerfs on those weapon systems? Nerfs, which I might add, much like the recent nerfs to the VTR and HGN have done NOTHING to actually stop people from using them in the manner that caused the nerfs to be added int he first place.

I'd argue Ghost Heat doesn't help us right now either. Ghost heat is a terrible, terrible "solution".

What SHOULD have happened is fundamental changes to our heat system - Koniving's recommendations, basically, a low-cap high-dissipation model. But that's too late now.

Quote

I've been working the angels on this problem for over 2 years now. Sized Hardpoints improve customization far more than they hurt it. What they do cause is people to think about the ROLE of a specific chassis before buying it, because one no longer would be able to so drastically change it. But then, how is that bad' If one wants an MBT, they buy an Abrams, one doesn't add a Rhinemetal 120mm smootbore to a Stryker. If one wants a Flakpanzer Gepard one doesn't slap two 35mm autocannon to an M109 Howitzer. One selects the appropriate chassis for siad role, then customizes it within that role.

Which would have been a good way to go, if it was done a long time ago. It's too late now. People have bought these chassis under the understanding that they don't have a specific role, and can be customized for what they want to do. To implement such a base-line change, PGI would need to refund all the c-bills and MC that went into those mech purchases.

Sure, it would cause people to think of what a chassis can do before they bought it (which they do now too, though the umbrella is much larger), but it would change the roles of the chassis that people have already bought. It's one thing to change weapon balance, which can result in a build no longer being "optimal", it's another thing to tell players that the builds they bought their chassis for are actually invalid.




Ultimately, though... don't fool yourself into thinking that hardpoint sizes would stop min-maxing, or make more chassis viable. It would just change which chassis are viable.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

since the core players have been telling them it was needed since early closed beta, yeah, it sorta is laziness, or arrogance. And it is hardly a "core system". It would take some coding, but nothing terribly egregious. And had they listened to the CB testers in the first place, we would not have Ghost Heat, the silly nerfbuff yo yo, and most current players would not be used to a broken system, so there would not be he QQ that any major overhaul now will engender.

They should have listened to CB testers in the first place. No argument there.

But we'd still have nerfbuff yoyo, that always happens in every single multiplayer game, always.