205 replies to this topic

[Xarian]

It's a great idea.

Would be a nice replacement for ghost heat.

[Sybreed]

Josef Nader, on 24 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

And nobody's addressed the counterpoints people keep bringing up, namely:

1) Further restricting mech customization strangles out chassis and variants that are already struggling.

2) You won't have any effect on the meta, you'll simply limit the number of mechs on the girls even further. People aren't about to start playing non-meta mechs just because you changed which mechs they have decent hitboxes and can run the loadouts they like.

3) I've yet to see any real argument as for why this system needs to be in place beyond "waah! Mechs aren't using their stock (or close to stock) loadouts!" and "lol it will help weapon balance," which it won't, because as I mentioned above, players aren't going to change which loadouts they're going to be running, just the chassis.

1) you're just assuming that this is the end result of limiting customization, but until the system is tested there's no way to know for sure. This is something you're taking for granted, so there's no need to counter-argument your point. Until it's tested, you can't know.

2) Mechs will have more mixed builds which would likely increase the ToK (time to kill) as FLD doesn't become the only source of damage. If 1 or 2 mechs become problematic and become the most common picks, then they can be fixed as needed.

3) It will reduce some sillyness but it won't entirely fix it. Like many, I asked for a rework of how weapons deal their damage so FLD isn't the name of the game. But, it won't fix the imbalances completely. From a gameplay point of view, it gives more reasons to own more mechs. As of now, I regret getting the overlord package and saber reinforcement package because they are basically just reskins and rearranging of hardpoints. If each mech had a specific role, I wouldn't have had the impression I wasted my money as much.

[OneEyed Jack]

Magnakanus, on 24 April 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

[Linked for space]

While your post is well-written, and reasonably thought-out, it's also wrong. I never suggested that the game was entirely populated by meta humpers. But most players do want to play reasonably competitive mechs and not just lose all the time. There is already much more diversity among the casual crowd the the doom-criers will admit. Of course, said casuals aren't in a separate queue, so they are pretty much always in the same game with at least some meta humpers, and observational bias makes it seem to some people that it's all there is.

There will always be a meta. Always. And the meta humpers will always flock to it. That's not something that can be changed. Adding limits can shift the meta, but not remove it. The meta humpers will have just as much fun abusing whatever the new meta is. They don't really care, because their version of fun is purely about winning, and what they're doing to get there is unimportant. But that doesn't mean that the more casual players have fun just losing all the time, so they build mechs they enjoy playing, that can still hold their own. Imposing added build restrictions only hurts these people by removing the variety of mechs that they both enjoy playing and which can be made semi-competitive.

There are better measures that could be taken, such as improving the underused mechs so that they will see more play. But all that really does is spread out the more casual crown among more chassis/variants, because the meta-humpers wouldn't care unless something became good enough to shift the meta.

Sybreed, on 24 April 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

Got a question for you: Is a charger with PPCs instead of small lasers still a Charger?

My point is that customization is not only causing imbalances, but it's also killing mech identities. Of course the Charger is a bad mech and the mechlab would make it useful.... but it wouldn't be a charger anymore. It would be a Charger skin that would actually be closer to an Awesome of w/e. At this point, PGI should just release an empty mech template for each tonnage available with unlimited hardpoints and call it a day. Build your mech from the ground up since it's pretty much what we do.

Well, I was going to link the Challenger, but I spotted this: CGR-2A2 A Periphery modification of the Charger, the 2A2 has had a ton of armor removed and its weapons stripped out. In their place, the 2A2 carries a medium laser and five Rocket Launcher 10s. This modification gives the Charger an immense amount of firepower that can be used in one shot or over the course of a battle. With the Charger's role as a heavy scout, the one-shot nature of the Rocket Launchers is not as much of a hindrance as if they were placed on a dedicated assault 'Mech.
Notice, it's not a production model at all, but a modification. Is it no longer a Charger?

topgun505, on 24 April 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Because seeing THE EXACT SAME LOADOUT on 4-5 different chassis is oh so much better??

Yes. yes it is. They are machines with different performance envelopes. But even if they performed exactly the same, it still offers the player a chance to play a chassis they like the look and feel of, with the loadout they enjoy, rather than being forced to play a specific chassis they don't like. It also offers that same option to more casual players who often just want to play in the mechs they enjoy, or feel nostalgic about, and still play the way they enjoy playing. Limits like this wouldn't hurt the meta humpers, who would simply adjust to the new meta. It would only hurt the enjoyability and personalization of the game.

[AC]

Josef Nader, on 24 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

And nobody's addressed the counterpoints people keep bringing up, namely:

1) Further restricting mech customization strangles out chassis and variants that are already struggling.

2) You won't have any effect on the meta, you'll simply limit the number of mechs on the girls even further. People aren't about to start playing non-meta mechs just because you changed which mechs they have decent hitboxes and can run the loadouts they like.

3) I've yet to see any real argument as for why this system needs to be in place beyond "waah! Mechs aren't using their stock (or close to stock) loadouts!" and "lol it will help weapon balance," which it won't, because as I mentioned above, players aren't going to change which loadouts they're going to be running, just the chassis.

1) This is a poor arguement. Chassis are struggling because almost everything is nearly an Omni-mech. Why drive the slightly lamer version of a chassis when the awesome version lets you do whatever you want. Limiting slot size lets you differentiate the chassis and provides unique loadouts between them that would bring some of the unloved chassis off the shelf.

(Perfect example are Stalkers. They are all NEARLY the same, but there is one that is crappier just due to number of slots. With a size limit on the slots, maybe that stalker becomes the only one that can do 4PPC, for example. It would bring that Stalker off the shelf for those that like to boat PPC on stalkers.)

2) This is another twisted arguement. Weapon slot limits are a BALANCING factor. There is nothing to say that PGI won't make all the slots huge, and just limit down a few. Also, if a mech has awesome hit boxes and is overused, PGI now has another balancing card up its sleeve. They can downsize a weapon slot or two to reduce its potential firepower. Now it is super tough, with moderate firepower....rather than super tough and superior firepower.

3) You want an arguement? Ghost Heat....Gauss Delay....Gauss Criticals..... Twin AC20 jaggers. None of them are neccessary with a limited slot system. Gauss delay is because Cataphracts (and others) were boating Gauss +2ERPPC. With limited slots, that sort of boating goes away....as does the need for Gauss Delay. 6PPC stalkers (and others) created the need for Ghost Heat, with a slot limit system that would go away and the need for Ghost Heat with it. While at the same time pulling the Awesome off the shelf. When was the last time you saw a legit PPC awesome in game?

Slot limits are all bonus, with very little negative. The whiners that are against it have this massively restrictive system in their minds. I don't think that has to be the case. They are not going to take an AC20 slot and limit it to a machine gun..... This is just another tool to help the unloved chassis get off the shelf, create differences between the configs in the same mech chassis, and give PGI a USEFUL (and simple) balancing tool to fix problems. A balancing tool that is visible to users and doesn't require high level math or hunting the forums for years.

[OneEyed Jack]

Sybreed, on 24 April 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

Josef Nader, on 24 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

And nobody's addressed the counterpoints people keep bringing up, namely:

1) Further restricting mech customization strangles out chassis and variants that are already struggling.

2) You won't have any effect on the meta, you'll simply limit the number of mechs on the girls even further. People aren't about to start playing non-meta mechs just because you changed which mechs they have decent hitboxes and can run the loadouts they like.

3) I've yet to see any real argument as for why this system needs to be in place beyond "waah! Mechs aren't using their stock (or close to stock) loadouts!" and "lol it will help weapon balance," which it won't, because as I mentioned above, players aren't going to change which loadouts they're going to be running, just the chassis.

1) you're just assuming that this is the end result of limiting customization, but until the system is tested there's no way to know for sure. This is something you're taking for granted, so there's no need to counter-argument your point. Until it's tested, you can't know.

You think this is something new? You think power-gamers haven't been around as long as gaming? This is not something that needs to be tested, because it's been proven innumerable times.

[Xarian]

Josef Nader, on 24 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

And nobody's addressed the counterpoints people keep bringing up, namely:

1) Further restricting mech customization strangles out chassis and variants that are already struggling.

Those 'struggling' variants aren't typically that bad - they are just worse when compared to other specific variants. By restricting those variants further, you are making the 'struggling' variants more attractive in a relative sense.

Quote

2) You won't have any effect on the meta, you'll simply limit the number of mechs on the girls even further. People aren't about to start playing non-meta mechs just because you changed which mechs they have decent hitboxes and can run the loadouts they like.

Huh? Your argument here seems to be "people won't stop playing mechs that are no longer possible to build"... which doesn't make sense.

Quote

3) I've yet to see any real argument as for why this system needs to be in place beyond "waah! Mechs aren't using their stock (or close to stock) loadouts!" and "lol it will help weapon balance," which it won't, because as I mentioned above, players aren't going to change which loadouts they're going to be running, just the chassis.

1) Chassis determines things like your speed, agility, ammo, and whether or not you can jump. So yes, the chassis is very important.
2) It will allow removal of ghost heat because builds like 6x PPC or 2x AC/20 will no longer be possible.
3) It introduces more diversity in the mech variants being used.
4) It makes "glass cannon" medium mechs more attractive because they can have disproportionately large amounts of weaponry compared to more popular medium mechs (e.g. hunchback compared to shadowhawk)
5) It will allow for additional tweaks to the weapons to address balance issues that would not otherwise be possible without upsetting game balance in the current environment. For example, removing ghost heat from AC/20s and further lowering their heat and refire rate by 15% would be a huge change in the current environment because any mech with a ballistic slot in the torso (and some in the arms) can equip them - this would lead to a dramatic upswing in the usage of AC/20s. On the other hand, if only a handful of mechs could actually equip them in their torsos or arms (e.g. Yen-Lo-Wang, Atlas, Cataphract, Hunchback, etc) then you wouldn't change the game balance particularly much. You would, however, see an increase in the amount of people playing mechs who were designed to use the AC/20 rather than seeing people trying to cram them on any old fast mech with jump jets.

It's would be a positive change.

[1453 R]

AC, on 24 April 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

1) This is a poor arguement. Chassis are struggling because almost everything is nearly an Omni-mech. Why drive the slightly lamer version of a chassis when the awesome version lets you do whatever you want. Limiting slot size lets you differentiate the chassis and provides unique loadouts between them that would bring some of the unloved chassis off the shelf.

(Perfect example are Stalkers. They are all NEARLY the same, but there is one that is crappier just due to number of slots. With a size limit on the slots, maybe that stalker becomes the only one that can do 4PPC, for example. It would bring that Stalker off the shelf for those that like to boat PPC on stalkers.)

2) This is another twisted arguement. Weapon slot limits are a BALANCING factor. There is nothing to say that PGI won't make all the slots huge, and just limit down a few. Also, if a mech has awesome hit boxes and is overused, PGI now has another balancing card up its sleeve. They can downsize a weapon slot or two to reduce its potential firepower. Now it is super tough, with moderate firepower....rather than super tough and superior firepower.

3) You want an arguement? Ghost Heat....Gauss Delay....Gauss Criticals..... Twin AC20 jaggers. None of them are neccessary with a limited slot system. Gauss delay is because Cataphracts (and others) were boating Gauss +2ERPPC. With limited slots, that sort of boating goes away....as does the need for Gauss Delay. 6PPC stalkers (and others) created the need for Ghost Heat, with a slot limit system that would go away and the need for Ghost Heat with it. While at the same time pulling the Awesome off the shelf. When was the last time you saw a legit PPC awesome in game?

Slot limits are all bonus, with very little negative. The whiners that are against it have this massively restrictive system in their minds. I don't think that has to be the case. They are not going to take an AC20 slot and limit it to a machine gun..... This is just another tool to help the unloved chassis get off the shelf, create differences between the configs in the same mech chassis, and give PGI a USEFUL (and simple) balancing tool to fix problems. A balancing tool that is visible to users and doesn't require high level math or hunting the forums for years.

1.) You. Are. Missing. The. Point.
Limiting a ‘Mech to Stock+DHS armaments does not a damn thing to bring back ‘unloved’ variants. There’s a reason those variants are unloved, and it’s rarely an issue of hardpoints. Or at least strictly an issue of hardpoints. Instead, it’s an issue of hitboxes, engine ratings, armor, physical weapon placement, and a host of other factors that all combine to make or break any given ‘Mech.

Again, I say unto you – eliminate meaningful ‘Mech customization from this game and all you’ll see are players using the bare handful of chassis that can still do That Thing That Wins Games to, y’know…win games. How many times do me and Jack and Josef and the rest have to say it? PEOPLE WON’T MAGICALLY START PLAYING BAD ‘MECHS BECAUSE YOU CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF GOOD ONES.

2.) Uhh…so you’re arguing for sized hardpoints in order to force ‘Mechs to stick very closely to their canonical, TT loadouts “because personality! Identity! Realism! AND NO MORE $*^!ING META!”, and then saying that PGI is welcome to make nearly all hardpoints Large-types except for those on a bare handful of specific, overperforming variants? Do I even need to continue to point out how ridiculous this counter-argument is?

Either you want to size hardpoints because you hate customization, fun, and winning and haven’t been able to convince Piranha to give you a stock-only queue you want less PPCs and autocannons in your matches, or you’re cool with our current pseudo-limited customization system which comes as close as we’re ever likely to get to retaining the overall goal and flavor of any given ‘Mech without gutting its ability to adapt to the current requirements of the game entirely.

3.) The Dragon Slayer can sling a PPC and a Gauss rifle, according to its stock configuration. It can also do 2xAC/5, 1xPPC, according to its current given hardpoints and the requirements of a sized hardpoint system. It can do this with the game’s highest possible engine cap and jump jets. There are at least two Banshees, though I can’t recall which ones right now, that can bring both large-bore autocannons and heavy energy weapons. I know for a fact that La Malinche can do it.

All the things you people hate will still be in the game. They’ll just move to a different, much smaller number of chassis. Remove Ghost Heat and Gauss Delay and you’d go straight back to jump-sniping super alphas – the DS alone can manage 25 damage a pop, which may not be much by the old day’s standards, but it’ll still be more than enough to incite great nerdrage and tremendous cries of “P2W! P2W!!” on the forums. Limiting hardpoints via a size system won’t do a single blasted thing to affect weapon balance. All it will do is kill marginal ‘Mechs who only see play right now because we can fix their issues in the Mechlab. Remove our ability to fix a ‘Mech’s issues in the Mechlab…and guess what? YOU REMOVE THE MECH FROM MEANINGFUL EXISTENCE.

[Prezimonto]

Almond Brown, on 24 April 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

If I read that correctly, you want to modify the current system but do so with another system that is also modifiable to assure you get what you want out of the new system...? Is that about right?

That's right. Compromise. In this case, find a solution that's easy to implement, and achieves the goal.

[EgoSlayer]

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

Opens up the rarely used chassis's 'cos they can do things the others can't - Because some people are too effing dense to realize that the only chassis that would matter would be the very few that could do very specific things, and other chassis would actually be used less or not at all.

In short, telling people that if they want to play a certain style, whatever that style might be, they can only do it in a given chassis does NOT, in any way, increase diversity or stop the bad people from touching you.

Sized hardpoints are futile because of the reasons above, not to mention the mech building re-write that would have to occur, the additional effort to then re-balance the existing chassis to make them viable, and the additional work to provide new "balanced" variants that are worth anything.

You know what fixes the problems better then hard point sizes? A fixed heat scale. Want to carry 4 PPCS on your stalker? Try firing them all with a 30 heat cap and see what happens...

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Edge cases of one-shots don't apply, as it has too little to do with the build, and head shots are part of the game.

I skipped the Clan reference because IS mechs are NOT improved Omnis. IS have always been customize-able. The long lists of field mods and canon custom mechs attests to that, as well as the very rules of the IP. Omni technology was more about being able to do it quickly to fit the mission, and with built-in CASE. The only reason IS mechs beat that in MWO is because there's no time element to the game, forcing the owner to do without the mech for weeks or more while work is done on his mech. If I had a say, they'd allow Omnis to pick from pre-selected load-outs during the pre-match, after they know the map, mode and such, to emulate it, but they didn't ask me.

Total Tangent - This actually a good idea for CW - Change your IS mech loadout and it's a 15 minute lockout on that mech. Clan no lockout. This assumes that; a) we get CW and b ) there are some time window/time limited events for action/drop ship mode and a consistent map location to fight on.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 24 April 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[Magna Canus]

OneEyed Jack, on 24 April 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

While your post is well-written, and reasonably thought-out, it's also wrong. I never suggested that the game was entirely populated by meta humpers. But most players do want to play reasonably competitive mechs and not just lose all the time. There is already much more diversity among the casual crowd the the doom-criers will admit. Of course, said casuals aren't in a separate queue, so they are pretty much always in the same game with at least some meta humpers, and observational bias makes it seem to some people that it's all there is.

There will always be a meta. Always. And the meta humpers will always flock to it. That's not something that can be changed. Adding limits can shift the meta, but not remove it. The meta humpers will have just as much fun abusing whatever the new meta is. They don't really care, because their version of fun is purely about winning, and what they're doing to get there is unimportant. But that doesn't mean that the more casual players have fun just losing all the time, so they build mechs they enjoy playing, that can still hold their own. Imposing added build restrictions only hurts these people by removing the variety of mechs that they both enjoy playing and which can be made semi-competitive.

There are better measures that could be taken, such as improving the underused mechs so that they will see more play. But all that really does is spread out the more casual crown among more chassis/variants, because the meta-humpers wouldn't care unless something became good enough to shift the meta.

I think we all concentrate a bit too much on "meta players". They are just as much a boogey man as "evil premades". There is no way to stop people from min/max munchkin play short of making each and every chassis and weapon equal in all ways. What I am after is what you suggest, making more chassis viable and competative though not only realistic weapon slot allocation but also quirks to make each chassis unique and useful with its preferred primary weapons system.

Fear of meta players should not be the reson to avoid useful change.

[Josef Nader]

I'm very curious as to why everyone is fixated on 4x PPC builds when that hasn't been effective for nearly a year.

I can't remember the last time I saw a 4x PPC mech. I certainly can't remember the last time I saw one do well.

[zagibu]

Because sized hardpoints would have been a better way to make 4/6 PPC builds impossible than what they did with ghost heat.

[Josef Nader]

Except they wouldn't, because mechs like the Warhhawk exist, and allowing the Warhawk to run around hitting things with 40 damage alphas from map-sheets away is a problem. Just because you've restricted it to the Warhawk doesn't make it any better.

Alright hardpoint sizers, let's have a little thought experiment.

I love the Dragon. A lot of people here think the Dragon is a crappy mech, and they're totally right. It was awful with it's stock loadout in tabletop, and it's awful for most of the common roles here in MWO. It's got bad hitboxes and it's in the awkward transition zone between mediums and heavies, which forces it to either undergun itself to get going fast enough or cut so deeply into it's speed that it gets outplayed by other slow heavies.

I freaking love the Dragon.

I noticed that the Dragon's shoulder energy hardpoint is level with the cockpit, and the cockpit is the highest point on the mech. This makes the Dragon one of the best peek snipers in the game if you slap an ERPPC on there. Take a look:

DRG-1C

Ignore the gauss rifle for most of your sniping, as you're trying to avoid exposure, but if you have a clear shot and you can jam your right arm around a corner, it's worth throwing in there. You can replicate that loadout on the Fang, which represents half of my Dragon stable. It's fast, it outguns anything that can keep up with it, and it's something completely unique to the Dragon. A high-speed ERPPC sniper with enough weight to pack some serious backup punch is not something I can do on any other chassis, and this is the only loadout I've found that turns the Dragon from a mediocre fast attack platform into a serious threat on the battlefield.

Now, let's take a look at a stock Dragon 1C...

DRG-1C

Hmm. In none of these systems (limited number of crits per hardpoint, small/large, tiny/small/medium/large/huge) can my Dragon build exist. It's made of dinky, tiny hardpoints. This was it's downfall in tabletop, and it's a big part of why people don't like it in MWO.

Restrict my ability to slap large weapons onto the Dragon and you've killed the Dragon. Period. It goes away forever.

Oh, but you could balance it so that you -can- put large weapons on the Dragon!

Then what's the bloody point of this ridiculously complex and arbitrary system in the first damn place?

Unless, of course, you're just trying to eliminate the mechs and loadouts that you personally don't like. Well, tough toenails. People will run what people want to run. Learn to adapt.

And because I know folks are going to call me a meta humper, I don't have a single mech in my stables that mounts a pair of PPCs and a pair of AC/5s. The closest approximation is my Firebrand, which is a pair of larges, a pair of AC/5s, and a pair of mediums because I wanted to play one of my favorite tabletop heavies. I'm not against this idea because I'm afraid you're going to take my meta away, I'm against this idea because it will kill my ability to make use of the vast majority of my 65+ mechs, which I have deviated far from their original tabletop loadouts to make effective/enjoyable to me. Further limiting hardpoints kills mechs, plain and simple.

Edited by Josef Nader, 25 April 2014 - 02:49 AM.

[Rasc4l]

cdlord, on 22 April 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Option A:
There should be two categories for hardpoints; Small and Large. Keep it simple and base it off the stock loadout of the variant/chassis.

Small Hardpoints: TAG, SL, ML, MG, AC2, AC5, NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10.
Large Hardpoints: LL, PPC, AC10, AC20, Gauss, SRM6, LRM15, LRM20

Large hardpoints can equip small weapons, but small hardpoints cannot equip large weapons.
The listed weapons include variant weapons (pulse, er, uac, lb, streak, etc).

A very good suggestion.

Cons: It would somewhat reduce the ability to customize a mech into different molds.

Pros: It would make different mech variants more meaningful, because there would no longer be only that one variant you can do everything with. This "decreased" customizability would also be in line with clan mechs, which at the moment are very rigid compared to the IS mechs, where you can fit anything. Oh and we wouldn't need ghost heat anymore. Already that makes the Pros greater than the Cons. Would be nice to play a functional Swayback again.

[OneEyed Jack]

Magnakanus, on 24 April 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

Fear of meta players should not be the reson to avoid useful change.

You got me all wrong.

I don't fear meta humpers. I accept them as inevitable, and have no issue with fighting with or against them in any build I run. Rather, the two main driving arguments for limits are either breaking up the meta or increasing diversity. My stance is that further limiting build options doesn't accomplish either.

If I thought for a second that it would actually increase the diversity of reasonably playable mechs, I would support it, even if it had zero impact on the meta. Or, if I thought it would make a wider range of chassis/variants/builds competitive at the same level as the meta, thereby diversifying what the meta humpers ran, I would support it just to see more variety. I like variety.

But I know better, so I don't support removing options that allow myself and others to make non-meta, fun builds that are still reasonably competitive. Or crazy joke builds, competitive or not, like the Noisy Cricket. An AC40 Cicada is not a good build by any stretch of the imagination, but dagnabit, it fun! Is it realistic? Hell no. But little about either this game or the IP is realistic, starting with the giant, bipedal, walking tanks we drive, so I could give a flying **** about the "realism" of mounting giant guns in my giant fighting robot.

[zagibu]

Josef Nader, on 25 April 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

Then what's the bloody point of this ridiculously complex and arbitrary system in the first damn place?

You may ask for the point, but sized hardpoints is certainly not ridiculously complex and arbitrary. It's both simple and intuitive.

[Wieland]

1453 R, on 24 April 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

3.) The Dragon Slayer can sling a PPC and a Gauss rifle, according to its stock configuration. It can also do 2xAC/5, 1xPPC, according to its current given hardpoints and the requirements of a sized hardpoint system. It can do this with the game’s highest possible engine cap and jump jets. There are at least two Banshees, though I can’t recall which ones right now, that can bring both large-bore autocannons and heavy energy weapons. I know for a fact that La Malinche can do it.

Thats only with a 2 size hardpoint system. The 4 size i favor can make this impossible.

[Asmudius Heng]

As many have pointed out .... hardpoint sizes of some description is about mech DIFFERENTIATION.

It will not solve all the issues with the game by a long shot, but it will not destroy it either.

More reasons to own more mechs is a GOOD thing for the business model of PGI i would have thought too.

There are so many more positives than negatives to this I am sad it never came to pass.

The devs once responded to me saying sizes WERE being discussed and they would keep us posted but they never said another word about it so I am sure the idea is dead and buried sadly.

From what Paul was saying on the NGNG podcast a lot of decisions seem to be pushed on PGI from 'Other sources' - whatever that means. However it might mean that they have research to suggest that hardpoint sizes would be hated by new players or something which is what they desperatly prize and why they added 3rd person etc.

I personally think that is bogus but its becoming more clear that PGI have had to force in features or not put in features due to these outside forces so there is some food for thought.

If it was in there from day 1 no one would have cared and this argument would never be happening from the other side i rekon

[Demuder]

First off, I am sad to agree with many here that all this is just a thought experiment. Even if PGI magically agreed to a system with fixed hardpoints and crit slots, they would never put in the effort to rebuild everything around it. Don't know if I would even want them to, in the hope that they might actually start working on CW.

Both sides have very valid arguments, but ironically those arguments mostly coincide. In both systems there would be bad chassis and bad variants, in both systems power gamers would flock to meta chassis/variants etc etc.

Personally I would have preferred a restricted system over the current one, if only to avoid monstrosities like the ERPPC sniping lights or the AC20 Cicadas. They are inconsequential, mostly troll builds, but they do show up and they gimp the team they are playing on, just because their pilots want to mess with the game. In effect I think mechs would be more forcefully put in a role respective to their chassis. Arguably that doesn't mean that players would choose to play at those roles anyway.

I think a restricted system would be easier to balance, it would easier to predict (up to a pint ofc) the shifts in meta when a change to a specific weapon was done and silly systems like ghost heat would have never been put into place. It would be easier to find a niche for every weapon. Not that this is much harder with the current system mind you, if only PGI tried.

From a developer's point view, I think a restricted system would need a lot more work to setup initially but less to maintain throughout the game's life. Vice versa for a full customization one. I think it's evident why PGI chose the latter. It's not by chance that the upcoming Clan mechs are more restricted in their customization options, since they need to be a lot more carefully balanced than the haphazard collection of IS loadouts we can build atm.

My only hope for a change to the mechlab is that the Clan mech customization system proves to be very successful. Maybe then the customization model of IS mechs is reconsidered. After of course CW is fully functional. Yeah, right.

[Blacksoul1987]

did most of the people wanting sized hardpoints not play MechWarrior 4? it most certainly didn't work in that game there was very little diversity but there were certainly a lot of chassis collecting dust in the mechlab.