205 replies to this topic

[GroovYChickeN]

1453 R, on 23 April 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

snip

You argument assumes that all mechs are created equal. They are not. There are inherent drawback to some mech's over other's. Want your mighty peepeecee boat? You rock an Awesome. Enjoy! Oh and by the way you are a giant barn door. Better use cover to you're advantage. Otherwise you may be able to get one or two in a mech but not 3 or 4 without running an Awesome (or some other mech's that are not in the game yet).

Want to use a ppc in a light. Here is a Panther (if it was in the game). Enjoy being outran by most other lights in the game.

Another flaw with your argument is that one weapon type would replace another and again you are assuming a lot. PPC's will not replace LL for some builds especially brawlers. You also say that single instances of smaller AC's are useless. They are not, you just need to understand their roll. I use a single AC2 in my CDA-3M to great effect. Being able to reach out at pepper ridge humpers while giving my team ECM cover is very effective.

[CDLord HHGD]

GroovYChickeN, on 23 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

You argument assumes that all mechs are created equal. They are not. There are inherent drawback to some mech's over other's. Want your mighty peepeecee boat? You rock an Awesome. Enjoy! Oh and by the way you are a giant barn door. Better use cover to you're advantage. Otherwise you may be able to get one or two in a mech but not 3 or 4 without running an Awesome (or some other mech's that are not in the game yet).

Want to use a ppc in a light. Here is a Panther (if it was in the game). Enjoy being outran by most other lights in the game.

Another flaw with your argument is that one weapon type would replace another and again you are assuming a lot. PPC's will not replace LL for some builds especially brawlers. You also say that single instances of smaller AC's are useless. They are not, you just need to understand their roll. I use a single AC2 in my CDA-3M to great effect. Being able to reach out at pepper ridge humpers while giving my team ECM cover is very effective.

Well said counter points to the other guy! I agree where and this fits into my vision.

[Relic1701]

In Cdlords previous thread, I quickly responded and expanded on his proposal, yes I know I'm quoting myself but I really can't be arsed to type it all again, so....

Relic1701, on 17 March 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

We've been discussing something along these lines in the group I drop with, and we all think they will go a long way to bring back the 'flavour' of various mechs. But we were more along the lines of 'Small, Medium, Large, Huge'

• Small - Tag, Flamer, SL, SPL, MG, AC2, SRM2, SSRM2, LRM5, Narc
  
• Medium - ML, MPL, AC5, UAC5, SRM4, LRM10
  
• Large - LL, ERLL, LPL, AC10, LB10X, SRM6, LRM15
  
• Huge - PPC, ERPPC, Gauss Rifle, AC20, LRM20

If you want to be really picky you could add a 'Small Arms' hardpoint that can only mount SL, SPL, MG's & Flamers, you know the ones meant for anti infantry weapons.


All of a sudden the Awesome becomes, well awesome, being able to mount 3 PPC's, same with the K2. Having a look at some of the current chassis' and there hardpoints, adding sizes would do little to the majority of builds, but would stop a lot of the 'cheese' builds, and could even create more diversity, people would have to start thinking about their builds, even more so if there was a static heat cap.

Having a larger variety of sized HP's can make for a lot of variety, and as I stated earlier in this thread, a sized HP system if done diligently could do a lot for balance in the game.

Now onto some of the other points...

@OneeyedJack, my apologies if you misunderstood my 'One-Shot kill monsters' statement, what I meant it to mean, as many have picked up on, is the trend for boating massive weapons, twin AC20, twin Gauss (or rarely triple Gauss), 6PPC Stalkers etc. in the former 2 cases, this should even be allowed on anything smaller than Assault mechs, and in the case of the latter...no...ever. A mechwarrior would be stupid to even get in the cockpit as he would be dead after the first alpha!

@those who say that variety would diminsh due to mechs not having the 'correct HPs', I'd quote myself again, but apparently I can't quote from an archived thread, but, the list here is a selection of mechs used in the last tournament by one of the top 5 guys, he was an excellent shot, took me out several times ( ), but also highlights something, can you spot it?

• HGN-733C - STD300, 2xPPC 2xUAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo. 1.49 Heat Efficiency
  
• VTR-9B - XL325, 2xPPC 2xUAC5, 1JJ, 5 tons of Ammo. 1.45 Heat Efficiency
  
• VTR-DS - XL350, 2xPPC 2xAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo, 1.49 Heat Efficiency
  
• CTF-3D - XL280, 2xPPC 2xAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo, 1.42 Heat Efficiency

Yup, loads of variety there.......

@ those that think it will sideline other mechs (like the Quickdraw mentioned above), this is where the designers can be inventive and create a role using the sized harpoints, yes, use the stock loadout as a base, but then expand on that.

And finally, @those that think this will create more work for the art dept, not really, there will be less weapons to model for each mech, the existing dynamic models wouldn't matter, there already designed.

Anyhoo, as I stated previously, discuss, do not dismiss.

[moneyBURNER]

1453 R, on 23 April 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

All right. Ye want a reasoned argument as to why sized hardpoints are worthless? Here you go.

<snipped>

The proper implementation of sized hardpoints would consist of an amount of shared slots within a section, with the consequence being a reasonable reduction in the number of large weapons without affecting the number of smaller weapons, to act as an abstraction for "realworld" factors like powerplant limitations, physical volume limitations, optimal weight distribution, etc.

It wouldn't simply disallow big guns on a mech not originally equipped with them, but would tighten the loophole that allows a straight conversion from small weapons to large ones, in a way that makes sense visually and performance-wise.

For example, if a jenner arm has a 3-slot, 3 weapon energy hardpoint, then it can fit up to 3 medium lasers or 1 PPC, but not 2 PPCs, or 1 PPC and 2 MLs.

A stalker can have a 3-slot, 2 energy weapon hardpoint in its smallish arm so it can replace its stock MLs with a PPC, but not 2 PPCs. Or maybe one variant has bigger arms to allow 2 PPCs in each, but has additional penalties in the form of quirks to represent the tradeoffs of much heavier arms (like a slower torso). Customizability is generally preserved, and there is more disparity between similar variants for specific loadouts.

Weapon balance would absolutely be affected (no ghost heat or other penalties for excessive boating) because boating would be controlled on a variant by variant basis with a focus on chassis characteristics and its originally intended role.

To me, it's not about artificially restricting mechs to compensate for bad weapon balance, but better representing realistic limitations and tradeoffs that are not handled well enough by the current slot/weight system, to help justify the unique looks of mechs and achieve balanced gameplay from a logical standpoint.

[Fut]

The mere fact that the Devs have to literally scale down the physical size of some weapons (in game) to get them to fit onto some smaller Mechs should be indication enough that not all Mechs should be able to field all weapons (Weapon Scale Silliness - Thanks Bishop Steiner)... You might have the # of Crit spaces available, but if the weapon is ~25% of your total weight (arbitrary # guys, no need to get all Maths on me at this point), it probably shouldn't be allowed in some locations.

I mean, the AC20 is such a huge weapon that the Hunchback needs an absurd shoulder to house it properly... yet you can cram 2 AC20s into a Cicada (sort of) with no problems.

How does this make sense to anybody?

Sized hardpoints, or some variation of it, would be a nice addition to the game.

moneyBURNER, on 23 April 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

To me, it's not about artificially restricting mechs to compensate for bad weapon balance, but better representing realistic limitations and tradeoffs that are not handled well enough by the current slot/weight system, to help justify the unique looks of mechs and achieve balanced gameplay from a logical standpoint.

Well said.

Edited by Fut, 23 April 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[1453 R]

What you're talking about, Burner, is MW4's system. I had little issue with MW4's system, but the rest of this forum seems to consider it a horrific travesty, thus we get things like a 'Small/Large' hardpoint system as proposed in the original post. Obviously none of my arguments apply to MW4's system - that's a different system altogether. Everything I said, however, holds perfectly true for a simple reclassification of existing hardpoints into Small/Large varieties.

'Small' hardpoints are useless and a 'Mech is judged solely by how many 'Large' hardpoints it has, and whether they're in useful spots. Customization is gone completely in any sense that matters, and weapon balancing is completely unaffected. PPCs and autocannons are still the go-to guns, you just can't fit them in hardly anything anymore, so the small handful of 'Mechs which can fit them become the new be-all/end-all meta.

I.e. the Dragon Slayer can carry 2x AC/5 and 1x PPC even according to its stock variant, which carries a PPC in its left arm. Force Large/Small hardpoints, and I guarantee you that even post-Victor Nerf, the Slayer would rocket to the top of the lists because it can still pull the jumptard sniping metagame regardless of having effectively lost four of its seven hardpoints. It takes a less extreme hit from the sized hardpoint system than other 'Mechs and so it rises to the top.

You people need to get your heads out of the clouds and realize that bad will be bad and good will be good, no matter what you put it on. We need a better quirks system to encourage people to use bum variants or bum chassis, not sized hardpoints that mostly work against those very same chassis/variants anyways and eliminate eighty percent of 'Mechs in the entire BattleTech TRO from the game before they even make it in. We need weapons to be balanced because weapons are balanced, not because only certain 'Mechs can currently unbalance them. That's the situation we have now, it's simply that a much larger total number of 'Mechs can make use of top-end configurations than would be the case if we artificially and idiotically limited 'Mechs to stock-plus-DHS configurations.

Edited by 1453 R, 23 April 2014 - 11:56 AM.

[moneyBURNER]

1453 R:

To make it clear, I do NOT support small/large designations for hardpoints.

The difference from MW4's system is that there's a shared slot limit AND a number limit. The number of hardpoints on a mech remains the same, with only the addition of a slot limit to acknowledge other considerations not accurately modeled in the game, like physical volume.

As I stated earlier, in many cases there would be virtually no added restrictions in customizability. A JM6-DD arm could have a 3 weapon 9-slot hardpoint to allow everything it does now except an AC20, or a 10-slot for no change. The point is to be able to tune variants individually in a logical manner that satisfies multiple issues.

Edited by moneyBURNER, 23 April 2014 - 12:21 PM.

[1453 R]

moneyBURNER, on 23 April 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

1453 R:
To make it clear, I do NOT support small/large designations for hardpoints.

The difference from MW4's system is that there's a shared slot limit AND a number limit. The number of hardpoints on a mech remains the same, with only the addition of a slot limit to acknowledge other considerations not accurately modeled in the game, like physical volume.

As I stated earlier, in many cases there would be virtually no added restrictions in customizability. A JM6-DD arm could have a 3 weapon 9-slot hardpoint to allow everything it does now except an AC20, or a 10-slot for no change. The point is to be able to tune variants individually in a logical manner that satisfies multiple issues.

At which point you run into the logicality issue of “This ‘Mech builder thingummy says I have 10 free slots in my Jenner’s arm…why can’t I use those for things?”

What needed to happen, way the hizzell back when tabletop was first being drafted, is that ‘Mechs needed to have different numbers of critical slots available to them. You want absurd? It’s far more absurd that a Jenner has the exact same critical slot structuring as an Atlas. An Atlas and a Jenner have the exact same amount of internal space available to them according to the time-honored, decades-old critical slot sheet system. If that isn’t an absolute farce, I don’t know what is.

But we’re stuck with it, and so we may as well use it properly. If you have the hardpoint and you have the space, then you can stuff the gun in there Pushing an aggressive quirks system redesign through could help make sub-par variants pop again, and the Plans for the Clans show that PGI is capable of adjusting quirks based on slotted weapons and equipment. If you want to talk negative modifiers for slotting ‘oversized’ weapons, talk away.

Not that PGI’ll pay attention. This ship has sailed so long ago it’s damn near circumnavigated the globe. I have no idea why people keep bringing it up like it’ll happen.

[moneyBURNER]

1453 R, on 23 April 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

At which point you run into the logicality issue of “This ‘Mech builder thingummy says I have 10 free slots in my Jenner’s arm…why can’t I use those for things?”

What needed to happen, way the hizzell back when tabletop was first being drafted, is that ‘Mechs needed to have different numbers of critical slots available to them. You want absurd? It’s far more absurd that a Jenner has the exact same critical slot structuring as an Atlas. An Atlas and a Jenner have the exact same amount of internal space available to them according to the time-honored, decades-old critical slot sheet system. If that isn’t an absolute farce, I don’t know what is.

But we’re stuck with it, and so we may as well use it properly. If you have the hardpoint and you have the space, then you can stuff the gun in there Pushing an aggressive quirks system redesign through could help make sub-par variants pop again, and the Plans for the Clans show that PGI is capable of adjusting quirks based on slotted weapons and equipment. If you want to talk negative modifiers for slotting ‘oversized’ weapons, talk away.

Not that PGI’ll pay attention. This ship has sailed so long ago it’s damn near circumnavigated the globe. I have no idea why people keep bringing it up like it’ll happen.

The mechbuilder is just a basic abstraction to tell the techs what you want to install. A sized hardpoint system is just a more precise layout of what is feasible on a given chassis.

10 slots in an atlas should not strictly equal 10 slots in a jenner with the only additional modifier being weight. There needs to be an additional restriction to reflect other issues of common sense and realism.

Unlike in MW4, the number of hardpoint slots alotted to a variant wouldn't correlate to the slots of the stock weapons, only to a plausible sense of what it could reasonably carry with a consideration for the design intent of the variant.

For example, in MW4, the JM6-DD arm would be limited to 6 ballistic slots based on the stock weapons, and could potentially carry 6 AC2s, but only 1 UAC5.

In the proposed system I support, the JM6-DD arm would maintain the 3 weapon limit, but could carry a guass rifle, for example, because it's common sense that it could. The slot capacity of hardpoints takes into account other factors of realism that are not accurately modeled.

With sized hardpoints:

A JR7-F arm has 3 energy weapons but would be limited to 3 slots, so it could only substitute 1 PPC.

An AS7-RS arm has only 2 energy weapons but would be allowed 6+ slots to fit the 2 biggest energy weapons possible.

The current slot/weight system only works some of the time, as it would in the case of a light mech being limited by weight, but sized hardpoints can plug all kinds of design holes plaguing this game.

Edited by moneyBURNER, 23 April 2014 - 01:12 PM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

http://mechwarrior.o...es-Concept2.pdf

hear you have ready design concept

fit this to MWO?

[OneEyed Jack]

Relic1701, on 23 April 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

• HGN-733C - STD300, 2xPPC 2xUAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo. 1.49 Heat Efficiency
  
• VTR-9B - XL325, 2xPPC 2xUAC5, 1JJ, 5 tons of Ammo. 1.45 Heat Efficiency
  
• VTR-DS - XL350, 2xPPC 2xAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo, 1.49 Heat Efficiency
  
• CTF-3D - XL280, 2xPPC 2xAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo, 1.42 Heat Efficiency

Yup, loads of variety there.......

Where you are apparently completely oblivious is in thinking that would change. How little have you gamed to have such a naive concept of power-gamer thought processes? At least in your example there are 3 different chassis, each with benefits and drawbacks, and a 4th that's a different variant. If such ridiculous limits were added, all it would do is turn those 4 chassis/variants into 1. It would have been the exact same mech in each case, and you'd be fighting numerous of that exact same mech in each and every drop, because it is the one mech that meets the criteria.

On a different note, I have yet to see anyone actually take up 1453 R's challenge and demonstrate what other chronically unused mechs would gain enough from such a system.

[Wieland]

OneEyed Jack, on 24 April 2014 - 01:51 AM, said:

On a different note, I have yet to see anyone actually take up 1453 R's challenge and demonstrate what other chronically unused mechs would gain enough from such a system.

Take the spiders.
Whe have

• the 5D with ECM, 2 Medium Energy HP in the right arm and 1 Medium Energy HP in the CT
  
• the 5K with 2 Small Ballistic HP in each arm and 1 Medium Energy HP in the CT
  
• the 5V with 2 Medium Energy HP in the CT

Of those 3 the 5V is the least used because it has nothing that makes it interesting to use.

Now turn one of those Medium Energy HP into a Large Energy HP and you have a Mech that has something that makes it worth to use.

Who needs a Hunchback 4G when you have a 4H?
One of the 4G Ballistic HP is a Huge for the AC20, so make the Max Size of the 4H Ballistic HP Large and the 4H can never copy the 4G.
You want a Medium with a AC20? Take the the HBK-4G, Grid Iron or the Yen Lo.

Edited by Wieland, 24 April 2014 - 02:46 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 23 April 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

http://mechwarrior.o...es-Concept2.pdf

hear you have ready design concept

fit this to MWO?

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Instead of stoping MWLL they should have learned from MWLL

[OneEyed Jack]

Wieland, on 24 April 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

Take the spiders.
Whe have

• the 5D with ECM, 2 Medium Energy HP in the right arm and 1 Medium Energy HP in the CT
  
• the 5K with 2 Small Ballistic HP in each arm and 1 Medium Energy HP in the CT
  
• the 5V with 2 Medium Energy HP in the CT

Of those 3 the 5V is the least used because it has nothing that makes it interesting to use.


Now turn one of those Medium Energy HP into a Large Energy HP and you have a Mech that has something that makes it worth to use.

Who needs a Hunchback 4G when you have a 4H?
One of the 4G Ballistic HP is a Huge for the AC20, so make the Max Size of the 4H Ballistic HP Large and the 4H can never copy the 4G.
You want a Medium with a AC20? Take the the HBK-4G, Grid Iron or the Yen Lo.

So you make one Spider worse to marginally improve another one... that's still useless? If you load a LL in the 5V you get a mech with a single weapon that the 5K can use now, and it's not a good mech. What little value it has now is centered more on it's MGs than the single LL it can mount, and it can mount them all at once. The 5V wouldn't suddenly become worth taking just because it was the only one that could field a LL. It would just be a sub-par Laser Sniper with no ECM to let it even get the crappy shots it's single weapon would offer.

Even if you take the AC20 away from the all the medium mechs which can currently field it, but don't come with one stock, and leave only the 4G, GI, and YLW, they still remain marginal novelty mechs. They're all already played for fun by people not worried about competitive play. Do they suddenly become more competitive by being the only AC20 mediums (until more are released)? No. You'd probably see a few more at low Elo levels, but even people in the mid-range of Elo are at least somewhat concerned with performance, and will continue to mostly field the better mechs. So, you've removed options on better mechs, and cut down the number of AC20s and Spiders, but still haven't brought under-used mech out of the novelty bracket.

It's not just about whether a mech can do something another mech can't do. It's about whether that thing is significantly useful enough to matter.

[moneyBURNER]

OneEyed Jack, on 24 April 2014 - 01:51 AM, said:

Where you are apparently completely oblivious is in thinking that would change. How little have you gamed to have such a naive concept of power-gamer thought processes? At least in your example there are 3 different chassis, each with benefits and drawbacks, and a 4th that's a different variant. If such ridiculous limits were added, all it would do is turn those 4 chassis/variants into 1. It would have been the exact same mech in each case, and you'd be fighting numerous of that exact same mech in each and every drop, because it is the one mech that meets the criteria.

On a different note, I have yet to see anyone actually take up 1453 R's challenge and demonstrate what other chronically unused mechs would gain enough from such a system.

Shared crit-slot hardpoints is just one important design change that would mostly only limit excessive boating of the biggest weapons, based on attention to realism with standardized weapon sizes, proper mech scaling, a more robust quirk system, the removal of ghost heat, and ideally with a reworked heat scale. It shouldn't be a system of artificial restrictions to address flawed weapon balance.

FLD sniping/poptarting should still be effective, and so should DPS brawling.

If you want a narrowly focused example for increasing the use of unpopular variants only involving sized hardpoints, here it is:

Highlanders with 2 energy hardpoints in the right torso would have 4 energy slots total in that location, so they could fit 2 large lasers, or 1 PPC and 1 medium/small laser. Now the 733C can't carry 2 PPCs + 1 or 2 ballistics paired with excellent jumpjetting mobility (for an assault). You would have to look at other mechs for that combination, which would have other tradeoffs.

The 732 would have have 6 energy slots in the RT which could fit 2 PPCs, but the sacrifice is a lighter arm with only 1 ballistic.

The 733P would have 6 energy slots in its arm to be able to equip 2 PPCs, plus a PPC in the RT, but it has no ballistics.

The Heavy Metal would have 5 energy slots in its left arm, so it would be limited to 1 PPC (or 1 PPC and 2 lasers, or 3 lasers, etc.).

Every variant has a different flavour. Ghost heat is gone. PPCs can't be piled on to a chassis with no consideration for things like physical volume and plausible weight distribution which the current slot/weight system doesn't acknowledge.

You want a 4-PPC boat? A mech that can support 4 huge PPCs will be as wide as a barn door. Enter the Awesome.

[Peter2k]

I'd favor that idea
Although it has been brought up numerous times and I do think that PGI is actually far away enough from its players base not to notice if and what is wrong ingame

But then it's kinda funny
In closed Beta I brought up an idea how u could specialize you're pilot to a certain degree on weapons n stuff like that, giving u a small buff, was dismissed fast
And now we have/ are going to get modules that kinda do that
Lots of turnarounds in this company

I have all the mechs I need, why buy new ones if my mastered ones can do it too, or better, although they weren't designed for the stuff I put into them.
It's been also stated many times that such a problem would arise sooner or later.

And I think PGI might have something for everyone with Hardpoint size in mind.
It's called clan mechs.
endo and ferro don't get shoved around to make room for bigger sized weapons any more.
Can't take ferro out either, although quite useless in most cases considering the wheight savings.
Want to take out that pesky heat sink to make room and put it into the engine, u can't, it's fixed since it came with it.
So hardpoint limits will be upon us within certain limits anyway.
I know it's gonna make the clans look like a joke compared to my fully customizable IS mechs.

The Adder as described has a fixed flamer, going 90kph? With 2 erppc's?
Critical space will be the defining thing on this one I guess. Like probably on most clan mechs.

So it's kinda coming, in one way or another

On a personal note: would have loved the idea of at least trying it out, they have a test server.
If PGI would be up to snuff they could run such ideas on the test server and see if it's a boon or a curse.
And I think clan mechs are going to suck compared to my IS mechs that have no restrictions, although being thought as inferior.

[OneEyed Jack]

moneyBURNER, on 24 April 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

If you want a narrowly focused example for increasing the use of unpopular variants only involving sized hardpoints, here it is:

Highlanders

BZZZZZZzzzzzt!

Wrong answer! But we have some wonderful door prizes for you! Tell him what he's won, Bob!

Highlanders are not, by any stretch of the imagination an under-played chassis. Some variants are more popular than others, especially at competitive levels, but that's a weapon balance issue. And they all see play. The point here is that people keep harping on this fantasy idea that unused/underused chassis suddenly become useful. As in, there's a reason to take them over and above other chassis because the effect they bring to the table is worth bringing. Balancing out already popular chassis/variants to shift the title of Most Popular to one of the others, doesn't accomplish this.

[moneyBURNER]

OneEyed Jack, on 24 April 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

BZZZZZZzzzzzt!

Wrong answer! But we have some wonderful door prizes for you! Tell him what he's won, Bob!

Highlanders are not, by any stretch of the imagination an under-played chassis. Some variants are more popular than others, especially at competitive levels, but that's a weapon balance issue. And they all see play. The point here is that people keep harping on this fantasy idea that unused/underused chassis suddenly become useful. As in, there's a reason to take them over and above other chassis because the effect they bring to the table is worth bringing. Balancing out already popular chassis/variants to shift the title of Most Popular to one of the others, doesn't accomplish this.

I was talking about how to properly and realistically limit one of the best mechs in the game to allow other mechs to shine, like the Awesome. I don't have to spell out how the Awesome would then be viable as one of the premier large energy boats in the game with the right mix of abundant energy slots plus weight plus speed.

[OneEyed Jack]

moneyBURNER, on 24 April 2014 - 03:58 AM, said:

I was talking about how to properly and realistically limit one of the best mechs in the game to allow other mechs to shine, like the Awesome. I don't have to spell out how the Awesome would then be viable as one of the premier large energy boats in the game with the right mix of abundant energy slots plus weight plus speed.

OK, but that would require large energy to be more boat-able. Even of they dropped GH (lol, yeah right!), more than 2 PPCs just isn't that good. ERPPC are too hot, and normal PPCs have serious limits. Sure, some people still do it on Stalkers, but they can go "hull-down" behind a ridge and are tough as nails. If the Awesome was the only mech that could boat PPCs... PPCs just wouldn't get boated.

What it comes down to is this. You could lay out any system of limits. Literally any system. You could go through every chassis and variant assigning limits, quirks, new rules, anything. Within a day, any decent power-gamer would break your system and figure out what was best. Within a week it would be common knowledge. Within the month, a new meta would be firmly entrenched, with very few builds being played at competitive levels and all the wannabes at lower levels copying them, just like now. Now, those builds might be nerfed compared to what's being played currently, but they'd still be the top builds, and the whining would continue. The only thing you would have accomplished is that those builds would all be on a smaller variety of chassis/variants than they are now.

[Edited to add]
This is why I keep arguing the point. It's not because I'm a meta-loving power-gamer. I can power-game with the best of them, but generally choose not to. Contrary to what most probably think, I'm not trying to protect my precious OP meta builds. I generally play a variety of builds designed to be fun while still being fairly good. These proposals to enforce additional limits on mech-building take away from my (and others') ability to experiment and have fun with builds, while never even remotely accomplishing the stated objective of eliminating or diversifying the meta.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 24 April 2014 - 04:27 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

OneEyed Jack, on 24 April 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

"....while never even remotely accomplishing the stated objective of eliminating or diversifying the meta."

And here I have to disagree with you 100%. While it doesn't stop it cold, it would mitigate/limit it.

Reading through here I want to point something out. In my concept I do not eliminate the energy/ballistic/missile differentiation either. To re-print my list:

Small Energy: TAG, SL, ML
Large Energy: LL, PPC, + all Small

Small Ballistic: MG, AC2, AC5
Large Ballistic: AC10, AC20, Gauss, + all Small

Small Missile: NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10
Large Missile: SRM6, LRM15, LRM20 + all Small

(Includes all weapon variations; pulse, er, lb, uac, streak, etc.)

This arbitrary classification keeps it distinct from crit and tonnage as well, just a third factor to consider in building mechs. While this may limit your ability to experiment, running through the list of mechs I have saved this doesn't effect any stock build, gives underused variants unique options, and (drum roll) gives PGI's Champion mechs a renewed revenue avenue by being "stock" builds that can break this rule (as designed and implemented by PGI). What this limits is meta-player's ability to make those 2xPPC+AC20, 2xAC5, etc. builds. It doesn't eliminate them from the game but it narrows the options in chassis/variants that can do it.

Also, I do not want to stop pop-tarting.

I want to stop high pinpoint alpha striking as the primary mode of attack.

I don't want to remove it though either. I want to make it an option of desperation so costly that while it may win the day, it could also have lost the day.

This is lore. Nowhere can you read about pilots alpha striking everything they come across. What you do read about is mixed loadouts able to send damage at any range and pilots managing their heat.