67 replies to this topic

[100 Tonne]

Although I too would like to see a system like this, PGI said that they looked into it and I would not work. But for the life of me I cant remember their reasoning. Perhaps Niko will remind me.

[Augustus Martelus II]

and the critical slots spaces vs upgrades would still work as the same as the MWO system right now. Only the weapons would be affect on a restriction.

Even now when you put endo+ FF armor to an assault you reduce a lot is weapons hardpoints potential (more when you need to put ammo dependent weapons

Big Grimm, on 07 September 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Although I too would like to see a system like this, PGI said that they looked into it and I would not work. But for the life of me I cant remember their reasoning. Perhaps Niko will remind me.

with all the time they spend on balancing or nerfing....they had enought time to implement something like this. balancing and nerfing will always be on the run.



If we check most of the updates, there s a enought big part of it wich was for weapon nerf and balancing... At least with something touching this idea, a lot of that nerfing and balancing wouldn't have been necessary

= more time to spend on the core of the game....CW would be implement since a long time ago lol

Because when i read the last balancing and nerfing update they talk about putting more points for the internal or armor....a big lol when we know we already have twice the points of normal armor on each mechs

[1453 R]

List of chassis which will be damaged, or completely ruined (indicated by a [#GG] tag) by sized hardpoints, SINCE SINCE HARDPOINTS PEOPLE NEVER SEEM TO GET IT.

-Cicada
-Blackjack [#GG]
-Centurion
-Griffin
-Kintaro
-Shadow Hawk
-Stormcrow

-Dragon [#GG]
-Quickdraw [#GG]
-Catapult
-JagerMech [#GG]
-Thunderbolt
-Orion [#GG]
-Summoner [#GG]

-BattleMaster
-Stalker
-Banshee
-Warhawk
-Dire Whale

And conversely, list of 'Mechs which would benefit from a sized hardpoint system, to balance the scales:

-.
-..
-...
-...Vindicator, maybe?

Yeah. Notice most of those are already on the Less Than Good pile. Forcing bad 'Mechs to take bad weapons because you don't like it when they take good weapons instead does not create 'Balance', it creates bullscheiss.

BAD IDEA IS BAD. KNOCK IT OFF. You can't force every 'Mech ever to run in Stock + DHS configuration because you hate customization!

[Reitrix]

Zyllos, on 07 September 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

But boating of weapons is not a problem, it's a symptom of the issue, weapon convergence.

This, 100% is the reason many of MWOs problems.

A system of convergence is sorely required.
Either that or forced chainfire for all weapons with Alpha shots coming with a long cooldown.

Also, as a personal preference, please make weapon models universal in size. If a Commando straps a PPC to its arm, that cannon should be enormous.
The Firestarter with AC2 looks more like a long barreled Machine Gun.

[Augustus Martelus II]

1453 R, on 07 September 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

List of chassis which will be damaged, or completely ruined (indicated by a [#GG] tag) by sized hardpoints, SINCE SINCE HARDPOINTS PEOPLE NEVER SEEM TO GET IT.

-Cicada
-Blackjack [#GG]
-Centurion
-Griffin
-Kintaro
-Shadow Hawk
-Stormcrow

-Dragon [#GG]
-Quickdraw [#GG]
-Catapult
-JagerMech [#GG]
-Thunderbolt
-Orion [#GG]
-Summoner [#GG]

-BattleMaster
-Stalker
-Banshee
-Warhawk
-Dire Whale

And conversely, list of 'Mechs which would benefit from a sized hardpoint system, to balance the scales:

-.
-..
-...
-...Vindicator, maybe?

Yeah. Notice most of those are already on the Less Than Good pile. Forcing bad 'Mechs to take bad weapons because you don't like it when they take good weapons instead does not create 'Balance', it creates bullscheiss.

BAD IDEA IS BAD. KNOCK IT OFF. You can't force every 'Mech ever to run in Stock + DHS configuration because you hate customization!

It worka s the same as the MWO system...it just give every mech its own role. 1 Balistic doesnt mean 1 critical slot for it. If it wear an ac20 and only have 1 weapon slot well it will still be able to put an ac20 or a gauss rifle or anything smaller. You could put xl engines or standard ones like we do right now. It aint a complete version as i said before but just something i made tonight on my computer.

It would work as the same as MWO current system. You could still make a boom Jaeger but NOT on all the variants, only one could fit it (or the sniping jaeger). The catapult would lose the twin gauss version (since it shouldnt be like this anyways). The one jeager variant could take this role perfectly 9instead of puting 3 ac2 on each arm you could put 1 gauss on each arm wich would fit is role mroe perfectly than the K2.

Its to be able to see more unique variants not 3 boom jaegers or 4 for the whole jaeger mechs variants.

I did explain that it would be all the same stuff as before, upgrades could be made like before, you could put xl engine or standard and etc

And anyways upgrade to endo and Ferro....you lose a lot of critical space for weapons and other stuff, and mostly for ammo.

And like i said before you could still put ammo in the colored critical slots.

And i don t hate customization, i love it but i don t find it NORMAL to see 3 same variant for one mech. Ex Firebrand 2 ac20 or 2 gauss, JM6-DD: 2 Ac20 or 2 gauss, and etc....don t tell me thats customization....its only reproducing the same variant on each variants of the same mech....then why making a lot of different variant while one could make the same job for the 3 or 4 or 5 and etc?

Reitrix, on 07 September 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

This, 100% is the reason many of MWOs problems.

A system of convergence is sorely required.
Either that or forced chainfire for all weapons with Alpha shots coming with a long cooldown.

Also, as a personal preference, please make weapon models universal in size. If a Commando straps a PPC to its arm, that cannon should be enormous.
The Firestarter with AC2 looks more like a long barreled Machine Gun.

i dont know but it doesnt seem to fit to see a ppc on a commando (for the structure and its role)

so it could prevent those kind of troll build

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 07 September 2014 - 07:31 PM.

[Augustus Martelus II]

And right now we are only seeing Buff this, nerf that, thats too OP threat (so PGI make updates to correct those by balancing and nerfing stuff)....with that kind of hardpoint system, a lot of these problem would be remove.

Right now i feel like all the mech or variant are the same as others.

Sure Meta mechs variants would be ruined...Even if ghost heat would be removed with this kind of system....we wouldn't see a lot of poptart mechs or other types

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 07 September 2014 - 07:52 PM.

[Augustus Martelus II]

In fact i only want more well around builds and mechs that would feel more unique between each others and between variants

[Mal]

Moving to suggestions, it's more appropriate for there.

[1453 R]

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

....with that kind of hardpoint system, a lot of these problem would be remove.

And you'd also break thousands of peoples' 'Mechs, many of which would be unfieldable as the players might very well not hasve the money or inventory to re-arm his 'Mech with its stock weapons. To say nothing of how terrible most 'mechs' stock fits are. Many 'Mechs that already struggle would be rendered complete garbage with a sized hardpoints system limiting them, effectively, to their stock weapon configurations. How much work is a Dragon going to be doing with an AC/5 and a few medium lasers? Right now it can almost sorta compete in Puglandia with heavy energy weapons or the occasional Gauss rifle variant - you want to drop it from the game completely, why?

Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Sized hardpoints solve NOTHING. They would just shift The Evil baby-Eating META onto those 'Mechs whose stock hardpoint sizes just so happened to coincide with the requirements of the day. Bad weapons would still be bad, bad 'Mechs would still be bad. You would simply lose the option of putting good weapons on bad 'Mechs and arriving at halfway useable 'Mechs.

It would destroy meaningful customization, and if you think otherwise you're deluding yourself.

[Augustus Martelus II]

1453 R, on 07 September 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

And you'd also break thousands of peoples' 'Mechs, many of which would be unfieldable as the players might very well not hasve the money or inventory to re-arm his 'Mech with its stock weapons. To say nothing of how terrible most 'mechs' stock fits are. Many 'Mechs that already struggle would be rendered complete garbage with a sized hardpoints system limiting them, effectively, to their stock weapon configurations. How much work is a Dragon going to be doing with an AC/5 and a few medium lasers? Right now it can almost sorta compete in Puglandia with heavy energy weapons or the occasional Gauss rifle variant - you want to drop it from the game completely, why?

Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Sized hardpoints solve NOTHING. They would just shift The Evil baby-Eating META onto those 'Mechs whose stock hardpoint sizes just so happened to coincide with the requirements of the day. Bad weapons would still be bad, bad 'Mechs would still be bad. You would simply lose the option of putting good weapons on bad 'Mechs and arriving at halfway useable 'Mechs.

It would destroy meaningful customization, and if you think otherwise you're deluding yourself.

Well the weapons would be put in the inventory then you could rearm mechs. if they have the upgrades, the upgrades would remain there. Re-arming a mech wont cost anything. did it when i was pretty low on c-bill (removing a powerful engine to put it back to an other mech)

And NO it wouldnt make worst mech worst...far from it, each mech would become more unique. I had show only 2 mechs here, tis just i don t ahve the time to do ALL of the mechs.

imagine: 1 mech have a large laser and a med laser in one arm, but you want a ppc instead....you could make it BUT you could only put 1 PPC or Er PPC not a second Er PPC or PPC. simple as that.

And like i said MANY times each variant would be unique. Right now a catapult and a jeager are nearly the same mech except one can mount 2 ac20 in is arm and the other one in is side torsos (or gauss rifles). Jaeger would have a variant for heavy balistic, one for med and one for light and missiles....all different variant made to be different but with the MWO weapon system you can make with all theses 3 variants 1 config + the the K2. Wich mean 4 mechs with the same loadout... find that with a lot less imaginative config than this proposition i made.

There s a variant for the CIcada that can fit a PPC wich mean heavy energy weapon...so it still could have that PPC i don t change anything on that

I could make all the mechs like i did for the Jaeger and Stalker but i have many stuff to do and it would take time. If i would be paid for it i would do it. Did take those 2 mechs because most of the variants are kinda the same in the MWO system

And your last sentence just show me that you didnt understand what i said and repeat the whole time lol

I love customization but i hate that all variants can fit the same stuff....

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 07 September 2014 - 08:23 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Well the weapons would be put in the inventory then you could rearm mechs. if they have the upgrades, the upgrades would remain there. Re-arming a mech wont cost anything. did it when i was pretty low on c-bill (removing a powerful engine to put it back to an other mech)

And NO it wouldnt make worst mech worst...far from it, each mech would become more unique. I had show only 2 mechs here, tis just i don t ahve the time to do ALL of the mechs.

imagine: 1 mech have a large laser and a med laser in one arm, but you want a ppc instead....you could make it BUT you could only put 1 PPC or Er PPC not a second Er PPC or PPC. simple as that.

And like i said MANY times each variant would be unique. Right now a catapult and a jeager are nearly the same mech except one can mount 2 ac20 in is arm and the other one in is side torsos (or gauss rifles). Jaeger would have a variant for heavy balistic, one for med and one for light and missiles....all different variant made to be different but with the MWO weapon system you can make with all theses 3 variants 1 config + the the K2. Wich mean 4 mechs with the same loadout... find that with a lot less imaginative config than this proposition i made.

There s a variant for the CIcada that can fit a PPC wich mean heavy energy weapon...so it still could have that PPC i don t change anything on that

I could make all the mechs like i did for the Jaeger and Stalker but i have many stuff to do and it would take time. If i would be paid for it i would do it. Did take those 2 mechs because most of the variants are kinda the same in the MWO system

And your last sentence just show me that you didnt understand what i said and repeat the whole time lol

I'm not going to step into the argument, but I will just say this:

Unique isn't necessarily a good thing. Considering how narrow the meta requirements are, more unique mechs would be made even less viable compared to the meta mechs. Right now, the Shadowhawks are the meta medium, with hardpoint sizes, instead of all of them being viable, only 1 or 2 variants would be both unique and meta-viable.

EDIT: For example, the JM6-DD has 6 ballistic hardpoints, 3 in each arm. Meaning it will have more hardpoints, for fewer ballistic slots (otherwise there is no real balance, and mechs with more hardpoints win by defualt). Meaning that the JM6-DD will not be able to mount the dual Gauss or dual AC 20 builds. Thus, removing it from competitive play completely. While the JM6-S becomes the absolute meta Jagermech, because it has only 1ballistic in each side, thus giving it a bigger hardpoint size.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 07 September 2014 - 08:27 PM.

[Augustus Martelus II]

IraqiWalker, on 07 September 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

I'm not going to step into the argument, but I will just say this:

Unique isn't necessarily a good thing. Considering how narrow the meta requirements are, more unique mechs would be made even less viable compared to the meta mechs. Right now, the Shadowhawks are the meta medium, with hardpoint sizes, instead of all of them being viable, only 1 or 2 variants would be both unique and meta-viable.

Well still depend on how the size of the weapon hardpoint (number of critical slot allowed)

I know the Hunchback would gain back a little bit of is role.

Havent made the Excell proposition for shadowhawks and Hunchback, but i have a good idea about it.

Like i said: if a light mech can carry a er ppc in is side as a stock variant....you should be able to put heavy energy weapon there or lighter ones since it was made in the purpose.

Or if i take again my huncback (yeah i love it) the 4P.... the stock variant have 6 med lasers (if i remember) in that hunch side....so if you want, you could put 2 ppc or er ppcs but not 4 lol while is arms are made for smaller energy weapon size. In the current MWO system you can put 8 er ppcs....with nor armor and a ****** engine lol (not even xl). I know that you wont be able to bring it to the battlefield because of nearly no shs or dhs but still you can make one with 4 in the hunch or 2 on the arms.

PS i don t say its the ideal way to make it since we can bring something better out of it ( i made this yesterday and today in like 3 hours).

Had try to keep the same MWO rules to make it simple, to make it work with upgrades and all other stuff

[Augustus Martelus II]

IraqiWalker, its just i m fed up with all the balancing updates or nerfing....some patch add some, some other remove it...while the content doesnt go as it should be. And i think that PGI have to concentrate more on the core stuff than theses forever updates

This game seem like a forever balancing or nerfing while it have a lot of potential. PGI had try something and they try to make everyone happy while it will be impossible. And the current weapon system for a Multiplayer game is not the ideal one.

Mal, on 07 September 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

Moving to suggestions, it's more appropriate for there.

Thx Mal!

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 07 September 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Well still depend on how the size of the weapon hardpoint (number of critical slot allowed)

I know the Hunchback would gain back a little bit of is role.

Havent made the Excell proposition for shadowhawks and Hunchback, but i have a good idea about it.

Like i said: if a light mech can carry a er ppc in is side as a stock variant....you should be able to put heavy energy weapon there or lighter ones since it was made in the purpose.

Or if i take again my huncback (yeah i love it) the 4P.... the stock variant have 6 med lasers (if i remember) in that hunch side....so if you want, you could put 2 ppc or er ppcs but not 4 lol while is arms are made for smaller energy weapon size. In the current MWO system you can put 8 er ppcs....with nor armor and a ****** engine lol (not even xl). I know that you wont be able to bring it to the battlefield because of nearly no shs or dhs but still you can make one with 4 in the hunch or 2 on the arms.

PS i don t say its the ideal way to make it since we can bring something better out of it ( i made this yesterday and today in like 3 hours).

Had try to keep the same MWO rules to make it simple, to make it work with upgrades and all other stuff

See, the biggest problem is that the main way to balance it, is if you have multiple hardpoints there, then they will have smaller space for weapons, and if you have fewer hardpoints, then you will have more space.

The biggest problem with the hardpoint size argument is that we already have a system implemented for that. Our slot system that is taken from TT, does that. The only reason we had hardpoint sizes in the old mechwarrior games, was because they had fixed upgrades, and there was nothing you could do about it.

The clan mechs we currently have work like that. Fixed slots, mean you can't do anything about them, causing you to have a specific number of slots per location for weapons. IS mechs have dynamic structure slots, allowing for the slots to shift around and accommodate different sized weapons.


In your Hunchback example. There is in fact, NO reason in lore whatsoever, to prevent that hunchie from having an AC 20 in it's arm. The biggest AC 20 there is. Per mech construction rules, all you need to do is remove the lower arm actuator, and you would have the space needed to mount that gun in the Hunchback's arm.

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

IraqiWalker, its just i m fed up with all the balancing updates or nerfing....some patch add some, some other remove it...while the content doesnt go as it should be. And i think that PGI have to concentrate more on the core stuff than theses forever updates

This game seem like a forever balancing or nerfing while it have a lot of potential. PGI had try something and they try to make everyone happy while it will be impossible. And the current weapon system for a Multiplayer game is not the ideal one.

That I can understand. PGI's balancing methods are more sledgehammer than scalpel, causing usually more problems than fixing them.

However, I don't think the hardpoint size set up would balance anything, in fact, it would polarize things even more. Your solution is basically going to take the few slots we have in each mech, and reduce them even more in number.

[Augustus Martelus II]

But don t forget its only an example that can be work on....its just right now the one we have make the mechs to nearly all look a like

Ex all the jeagers variants + the K2 can have the same weapons

Ex Boom jeager or Boompult / GaussJeager or GaussPult

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 07 September 2014 - 09:43 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

But don t forget its only an example that can be work on....its just right now the one we have make the mechs to nearly all look a like

Ex all the jeagers variants + the K2 can have the same weapons

Ex Boom jeager or Boompult / GaussJeager or GaussPult

That's not a bad thing. Jagers all fulfill a specific role. Lots of dakka, high mounted, and pointed over there. If I wanted tp play an LRM mech, I'd go with something that isn't a Jager. Also, what you're pointing out, is just one or two isolated loadouts.

How many jagers and K2s can run 2LB-10Xs with 4MGs, and 2LPLs? That loadout is specific to the DD, The only loadouts you see being shared between the JM6 chassis variants are the ones that use only 1 ballistic hardpoint. Other than those, every other Jager has it's own flavor.

The Catapults are also each unique in their own way. It's part of the reason why I love the K2, unlike the others, it has no missile points, and instead uses energy and ballistics.

The diversity you're going for will actually homogenize everything. Every mech is going to have only 3, maybe 4 variants. The ballistic one, the missile one, and the energy one. Now each one is unique, but the problem is that the meta will favor the ballistic one, leaving us with even fewer choices in the higher Elo tiers, and in the meta.

[Augustus Martelus II]

IraqiWalker, on 07 September 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

That's not a bad thing. Jagers all fulfill a specific role. Lots of dakka, high mounted, and pointed over there. If I wanted tp play an LRM mech, I'd go with something that isn't a Jager. Also, what you're pointing out, is just one or two isolated loadouts.

How many jagers and K2s can run 2LB-10Xs with 4MGs, and 2LPLs? That loadout is specific to the DD, The only loadouts you see being shared between the JM6 chassis variants are the ones that use only 1 ballistic hardpoint. Other than those, every other Jager has it's own flavor.

The Catapults are also each unique in their own way. It's part of the reason why I love the K2, unlike the others, it has no missile points, and instead uses energy and ballistics.

The diversity you're going for will actually homogenize everything. Every mech is going to have only 3, maybe 4 variants. The ballistic one, the missile one, and the energy one. Now each one is unique, but the problem is that the meta will favor the ballistic one, leaving us with even fewer choices in the higher Elo tiers, and in the meta.

huh i don t change anything, like the one i did show here in excell format have all their own variant that exist just i don t find normal that a stalker could put 6 ppcs or er ppcs while in is basic variant it have mostly med lasers on is arms + missiles (10 tubes most of the variant)

In fact its an hybridation of MW4 (wich would have made a lot more boating weapons but was having a props on the hardpoint size) and the MWO hardpoint system (wich i keep the critical slots and use the limitation number of MWO)

Ex one stalker arm 2 med lasers + lrm 10 so it have 2 critical slot for energy (since is arm is mostly made for missiles but still you can put 1 large laser) and 4 missiles critical slot.

if i upgrade let say endo steel and add stuff....the system would try to keep the colored critical slot un-use from the upgrade...but sure if you add many double heatsinks and xl engine and ect....you will finally lose weapon critical slots like the mwo current system.

Sure there s some cons on that system nothing can be perfect but there s some pros stuff too.

If a mech have 26 variant then we could have the 26 variants. Some would have bigger critical weapon hardpoint size other smaller and etc

Just look the Stalker....even with my system they look a little bit the same, but some can pack more missiles some less, others ahve more energy points and etc.... But already most of the variant of the stalker look a litlle bit the same.

On the jeager, there s one made for missiles loadout, but still there s room for ballistic (but on a light lever vs the other variants)

One of the variant is mostly heavy ballistic wich make him different from the others.

But this system could be change also but its only an idea that i wanted to show visually. I m aint the master on the size of each colored zone (since i m not a game designer) but i wanted to show it. An idea like all the others

I could point out a lot of other build and do these excell comparison but lol that would take a lot of time.

Clan mech i have an idea for that

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

huh i don t change anything, like the one i did show here in excell format have all their own variant that exist just i don t find normal that a stalker could put 6 ppcs or er ppcs while in is basic variant it have mostly med lasers on is arms + missiles (10 tubes most of the variant)

In fact its an hybridation of MW4 (wich would have made a lot more boating weapons but was having a props on the hardpoint size) and the MWO hardpoint system (wich i keep the critical slots and use the limitation number of MWO)

Ex one stalker arm 2 med lasers + lrm 10 so it have 2 critical slot for energy (since is arm is mostly made for missiles but still you can put 1 large laser) and 4 missiles critical slot.

if i upgrade let say endo steel and add stuff....the system would try to keep the colored critical slot un-use from the upgrade...but sure if you add many double heatsinks and xl engine and ect....you will finally lose weapon critical slots like the mwo current system.

Sure there s some cons on that system nothing can be perfect but there s some pros stuff too.

If a mech have 26 variant then we could have the 26 variants. Some would have bigger critical weapon hardpoint size other smaller and etc

Just look the Stalker....even with my system they look a little bit the same, but some can pack more missiles some less, others ahve more energy points and etc.... But already most of the variant of the stalker look a litlle bit the same.

On the jeager, there s one made for missiles loadout, but still there s room for ballistic (but on a light lever vs the other variants)

One of the variant is mostly heavy ballistic wich make him different from the others.

But this system could be change also but its only an idea that i wanted to show visually. I m aint the master on the size of each colored zone (since i m not a game designer) but i wanted to show it. An idea like all the others

I could point out a lot of other build and do these excell comparison but lol that would take a lot of time.

Clan mech i have an idea for that

Again, there is nothing in the rules of BT that says a Stalker can't mount 6 PPC. Gausszilla anyone? http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gausszilla

MW4 had a bad system. The hardpoint sizes in there were because they didn't know how to implement the slot system into the game.

There is no logical reason that a Stalker can't mount 6 PPCs, not just in-game, but in lore as well. The only hindrance is the heat cost from firing them, and for that, the STK pilot has to chain fire them. The only reason the 6PPC Stalkers existed was because there were no heat penalties. Once those were implemented, that build and most of the others that abused the no heat damage system, died out.


Also, if you go through the variant list, of any mech, you will find very few variants that are actuall unique. Almost all of them are very similar. For example, the Catapult chassis has little variation between the variants in there. Aside from maybe 4 or 5 different variants, all of the others are very similar to each other, with little to no distinction.

[Augustus Martelus II]

IraqiWalker, on 07 September 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Again, there is nothing in the rules of BT that says a Stalker can't mount 6 PPC. Gausszilla anyone? http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gausszilla

MW4 had a bad system. The hardpoint sizes in there were because they didn't know how to implement the slot system into the game.

There is no logical reason that a Stalker can't mount 6 PPCs, not just in-game, but in lore as well. The only hindrance is the heat cost from firing them, and for that, the STK pilot has to chain fire them. The only reason the 6PPC Stalkers existed was because there were no heat penalties. Once those were implemented, that build and most of the others that abused the no heat damage system, died out.


Also, if you go through the variant list, of any mech, you will find very few variants that are actuall unique. Almost all of them are very similar. For example, the Catapult chassis has little variation between the variants in there. Aside from maybe 4 or 5 different variants, all of the others are very similar to each other, with little to no distinction.

The question is then, why would i purchase all the Jaeger mech if i can make the same on every variants? (outside of the Skill system that force you to buy 3 to put them on Master level)


In fact the thing i want is a stop on all those balancing stuff or nerfing updates....I want content, new game mode, AI (like tanks and other stuff) and etc...

Because i feel that we are falling in a forever fixing game.

[IraqiWalker]

Augustus Martelus II, on 07 September 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

The question is then, why would i purchase all the Jaeger mech if i can make the same on every variants? (outside of the Skill system that force you to buy 3 to put them on Master level)


In fact the thing i want is a stop on all those balancing stuff or nerfing updates....I want content, new game mode, AI (like tanks and other stuff) and etc...

Because i feel that we are falling in a forever fixing game.

All of the things you want to add into the game (A.I. new mode ... etc.) are actually being worked on and developed. I even remember talk of consumables that would drop A.I. controlled tanks, and power armor units onto the map.

To answer your question though. I would pick different JM6s because they each can run different loadouts. Again, the problem you're having is literally with one or two loaouts that can be fit across the same variants, because the variants share hardpoints.

I personally have no problem with that. If I wanted to run a sniper, i'd go for the S, but I can run that on all the others, which is a nice thing about variants of THE SAME CHASSIS. If I wanted to do other roles, I have to pick specific variants. For example, only the A can mount missiles. Only the DD can mount multiple ballistics, making it the only JM6 variants that can excel at suppression duty, and run builds like the 6 MG one. In fact, aside from the 2 shared loadouts (2 guass, 2 AC 20) no two run the same.


The variety is there, you're not seeing it, because you focus on the one or two shared builds. Shared builds should be fine, these platforms were designed to do those builds anyways. It would be unreasonable to force them not to run them.

Nerfs and buffs are never going away. There is no one serious multiplayer game out there, that doesn't have new nerfs and buffs with every single patch. It's part of balance, so long as new content is introduced (in this case, mechs, and weapons), balance will always shift. Your "fix" isn't really a fix, it will cause it's own balance problems.

Why would I take the HBK-4G since it can no longer mount an AC 20? It's got 3 ballistic hardpoints in the side torso, meaning that it should have fewer slots for ballistics than the other HBKs, that only have 1 or 2 ballistics points in there. Fiddling with these, for every mech, for every weapon hardpoint, is going to create more work, and in the end, it won't actually create balance. It will shift the game to a different meta. This time, it will be ML boating heavies and assaults, with big engines.


Again, the only reason the hardpoint size system was ever invented for the MW franchise (funs as they may be, those games had some SERIOUS errors, and flaws), was because they couldn't put proper mech construction in, and couldn't use the slots system right. In lore there was never a hardpoint size restriction. As long as that part of the mech had the structure slots, you could fit any weapon in there.

You're tired of the PP FLD meta. Gradual conversion is what you need. Tired of specialized builds, go into solo queue, where all-rounder builds are more beneficial. Nerfs and buffs maybe hated, but they are needed. Especially since PGI goes over-board with both.