418 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Hope about having hard point but allowing them to be exceeded and accounted for with negative quirks. For instance, putting a PPC in a slot designed for a MD laser would incur an internal structure penalty (suffers extra damage) and a significant heat penalty due to inadequate cooling; while an oversized AC could have an increased jam chance, or limited ammo storage.

[IceSerpent]

ShadowbaneX, on 08 October 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

Back on topic, about the system you proposed, might be a bit too defined, or, perhaps I should take a step back, how do you propose to use that system? For instance if a mech starts with an AC/2, do you limit it to just AC/2s & MGs? Or do you allow larger weapons in there? If you allow larger, at what point do you cap it? AC/5? uAC/5? LB-10/X? AC/10?

There are two proposals on the table (as far as I can tell).
The one I proposed only calls for limits on problematic mechs (i.e. "Direstar" DWF that people seem to complain about) and only imposes limits sufficient to get rid of the "big gun" in question (i.e. set energy hardpoint 2 crits if you don't want a PPC in there, set ballistic hardpoint to 9 slots if you don't want AC20 in there, etc.)
The other proposal is to limit all hardpoints on all variants with limits based on stock weapons in some way. Whether that AC2 would result in MG, AC2 only or something like MG, AC2,AC5 is open for debate.
Personally, I am not sure that having PGI to go through every single hardpoint on every single mech is worth the trouble. Not going to be upset if that happens, but I have a feeling that vast majority of the builds out there can be left as-is.

[Tastian]

ShadowbaneX, on 08 October 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

No, just a random tangent because people were talking about Medium Lasers.

Back on topic, about the system you proposed, might be a bit too defined, or, perhaps I should take a step back, how do you propose to use that system? For instance if a mech starts with an AC/2, do you limit it to just AC/2s & MGs? Or do you allow larger weapons in there? If you allow larger, at what point do you cap it? AC/5? uAC/5? LB-10/X? AC/10?

It could be tweaked by the mech for tier level and intention. For example a Dragon 1C has an AC2. It's obviously a tier 5 mech and a bit more leniency could be given; perhaps a Class 3 ballistic (AC10) allowed. A Catapult K2 ballistic point could be a Class 1 ballistic (MG, AC2 only) for aesthetic reasons. Also, tier 1 mechs like the Timberwolf could be much more strict; every ballistic hardpoint in the Prime and S variants are Class 1 and the ballistic hardpoint on the C right arm is a Class 2. This would prevent Gauss rifle meta builds.

[Lily from animove]

Alek Ituin, on 06 October 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

So much no. All of the no.

That's so unnecessarily restrictive that it kills half the reason to even play BT/MW. Which is customizing and building a Mech that is personalized to your play style. Your system would remove that almost entirely.

*your laystyle* as if most would play their playstyle instead of just what is good or meta.

[Karl Streiger]

OK have started:
First i take a look at my fav - the Atlas.
Currently 7 (builds) including the AS7-S

The AS7-RS (C)

• 4 Class 2 Energy Weapons
  
• 1 Class 4 Ballistik
  
• 2 Class 4 Missile Weapons
  
• 1 Class 1 AMS.

Because I need some "comparison" i added the values = 21

Compare with the RS Stock

• 2 Class 3 - E-Weapon FALSE
  
• 1 Class 3 - ballistic Check
  
• 1 Class 4 Missile + 1 Class 1 Missile - Check

So i have to increase two class 2 Energy weapons towards class 3


Final AS7-RS

• 2 C3E
  
• 2 C2E
  
• 1 C4B
  
• 2 C4M
  
• 1 AMS

Total of 23 points


Next the AS7-K

• 2 C3E
  
• 2 C2E
  
• 1 C4B
  
• 1 C4M
  
• 1 AMS

Total of 19 need +4



Final Classes: AS7-K

• 2 C4E
  
• 1 C3E
  
• 1 C2E
  
• 1 C4M
  
• 1 C4B
  
• 2 C1AMS

Same procedure for other Atlas Mechs:


AS7D

• 3 C3E
  
• 1 C2E
  
• 1 C4B
  
• 1 C2B
  
• 1 C4M
  
• 1 C2M
  
• 1 C1AMS

AS7-DDC (ECM count as Class 4)

• 2 C2E
  
• 1 C4B
  
• 1 C2B
  
• 1 C4M
  
• 2 C2M
  
• 1 C4E
  
• 1 C1AMS

AS7-BH

• 2 C2E
  
• 4 C3E
  
• 1 C3B
  
• 1 C3M
  
• 1 C1AMS

AS7-S

• 2 C3E
  
• 2 C2E
  
• 1 C4B
  
• 2 C1M
  
• 1 C2M
  
• 1 C4M
  
• 1 C1AMS

Ok this values are randomly - but to create some diversity between those builds. All Mechs have the same Sum of Classes - with a big question mark for the DDC.



So - what about Rolls?

• Anti LRM - Long Range Build -> AS7-K - only atlas capable of having PPCs and a AC 20
  
• Direct & Indirct Support -> AS7-RS
  
• Brawler with 3 SRM 6 - > AS7-DDC
  
  • (popular dual AC 5 is still possible)
    
  • same for the 2 LRM35-LRM40 build
• High Energy Boat -> AS7-BH with 4 Large Laser
  
• Allround - > AS7-D - with Centered Large Laser
  
• Allround -> AS7-S - but its not possible to create a better SRM or better LRM boat as the DDC

What do you think? I'm still opposed to hardpoint sizes - but for the Atlas they can work

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 October 2014 - 06:28 AM.

[Tastian]

Thanks for taking a look at the Atlas model. And you've demonstrated a major point I've been trying to make. PGI can increase some weapon class sizes for certain mechs based on tier needs. But you did bring up another issue - Champion mechs. I think some of the Champion mechs would violate some of the base variant hardpoints and have to be changed - Not so with the Atlas RS(C) tho. If I were to assign hardpoints to the Atlas RS it would look like this:

RA/LA
4x[Class 3] energy

RT
1x[Class 4] ballistic

LT
1x[Class 4] missile
1x[Class 3] missile

which would almost fit the RS(C). A minor increase to the LT would solve it without being OP:

RA/LA
4x[Class 3] energy

RT
1x[Class 4] ballistic

LT
2x[Class 4] missile

[CDLord HHGD]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 08 October 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

Hope about having hard point but allowing them to be exceeded and accounted for with negative quirks. For instance, putting a PPC in a slot designed for a MD laser would incur an internal structure penalty (suffers extra damage) and a significant heat penalty due to inadequate cooling; while an oversized AC could have an increased jam chance, or limited ammo storage.

I actually kinda like this. Replace ghost heat with this and apply increasing penalties depending on how high you go, MG to AC20/Gauss would incur the highest penalties for ballistics.

[Tastian]

Maxx Blue, on 08 October 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

Ok, I've been thinking about this, and I'm starting to think the Medium Laser needs to be a Class-1 item. Why? Well the medium laser (and the clan ERML) is one of the most important weapons in the game. It has just about the best balance of range, heat, damage and tonnage, and tons and tons of builds carry at least a couple medium lasers. Furthermore, lights in general rely heavily on 'upgrading' to medium lasers, and restricting them to smalls-only for some percentage of their laser hardpoints is going to hurt quite a bit since they already rely heavily on energy weapons for weight reasons.

Another interesting point: I am not much of a light jock, but when I was looking at my weapon stats in my profile, the two weapons I had dealt the most damage with, by far, were the IS and Clan Medium Lasers. For both Clan and IS weapons, I have done about 50% more damage with Medium Lasers than the next highest weapon, and this is just since the stat reset. It doesn't even include any of the time I spent mastering my HBK-4P! What I'm saying is that the Medium Laser, on both sides, is a crucial go-to weapon and I think we should consider allowing it in ANY energy slot. I feel it is the most important weapon in the game, and taking it away from some hardpoints is going to have a much bigger effect, especially on lights, than you might expect.

Class 4 weapons can carry Class 1, 2, 3 weapons also. So, a Class 4 PPC hardpoint could still be outfitted with a medium laser. And yes, many light mechs rely on med lasers but come stock with possible small lasers. But the hardpoints could be lenient based on the need of that mech. For example the stock Firestarter 9-H comes with 4 flamers and 2 medium lasers (4 class 1 and 2 class 2 energy) but it could be given 2 class 1 and 4 class 2 energy to keep it competitive.

[Karl Streiger]

OK - i did start working on the Banshee..... and just hopped in the first problem.
TLDR: If you bring the BNC-5S into MWO the current Hardpoint system is not possible - without reworking the existing 3D modells - to create new Hardpoints.
That is exactly what i thought from the beginning - sized Harpoints have to be well-balanced to work and to achieve that you have a fragile and complex system - that can be destroyed revealing a new Mech

As said i take the sum of the weapon classes as an "balancing" factor

The BNC-3S is full of weapons.
4 Class 2 E , 2 Class 1 E, 2 Class 4 E, 1 Class 2 M, 1 Class 3 B. = 22 Considering that there is something like a BNC-5S (dunno why this Mech don't made it into mwo - you have to increase the Class 3 B for Class 4 B. Resulting in 23 points like the Atlas - 24 with AMS.

But thats the problem.....take a look at BNC-LM - even when outfitting all weapons into max possible -
(head class 2 E, Missile Class 4, LT Class 4 B + Class 4 M - Arms Class 4 E each - only get 22 points.

You can say - hey the 3S has a slower engine cap - but to take the full advantage of all weapon classes for the LM - you have to mound a Gauss and PPC in the LT - and you don't have room for a XL so speed is not a matter.

To fix that the BNC-LM need additional hardpoints, for example 2 Class 2 E weapon in the CT - and the Class 4 Energy weapon near the ballistic slot is removed.
That means - additional work for the 3D model.
Alternative you give the BNC-LM additional quirks - but i dislike the idea to use alternative systems to overcome the shortage of another

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 October 2014 - 12:06 AM.

[Lykaon]

Xtrekker, on 06 October 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Personally I would avoid size limitations and just give weapons a class. Just spitballing...a "class 3" ballistics hardpoint might include AC10, LBX10, AC20, Gauss. Not that that is what it should be, just a meaningless example. We already have a size limitation with our current slot spaces.

I would probably limit the lower end too. Just because you can hang a PPC doesn't mean it would be compatible with small laser mounts.

But why reinvent the wheel?

We have crit slots already we do not have weapon sizes applied to every weapon.

What is gained from the reinvention of the wheel?

We can say a machine gun and an AC2 are small the AC5 and UAC5 are medium AC10s and LB10xs are large and AC20/UAC20 and Gauss are extra large but why?

Machine guns and AC2 are 1 slot so,already readily fit a "small weapon class" for ballistics.The current crit slot system works to restict a hardpoint between 1-3 critical slots prevents anything but these small balistics to be fitted there.

AC5s and UAC5s are 4 and 5 slots so,it stands to reason that a "medium ballistic hardpoint" caps at 5 crit slots.Also no need to alter the design from crit slots to size values.

LBX10s are 6 slots and AC10s are 7 slots.So a large ballistic Hardpoint should cap at 6 with the AC10 having it's critical slot requirement reduced by one to accomidate this crit slot value.This isolates the gauss rifle to the largest hardpoints.

With the huge hardpoints we have with Inner Sphere tech a further division in what will fit where.The gauss can fit in any side torso or arm that has at least 7 open crit slots.This means a Gauss will fit in an arm with a full compliment of actuators or a side torso with an XL engine while an AC20 requires 10 slots requiring an arm to remove the hand and lower arm actuator to accomidate an AC20.Also,AC20s and XL engines do not mix in side torso locations.

This of course means that extra large sized hardpoints will not always accomidate all extra large weapons.An arm with the hand removed (like a HGN 733) can fit a Gauss but not an AC20.The arm must be assigned an extra large hardpoint value because the native build accomidates a Gauss (an XL weapon) yet can not instead fit an AC20.This is not intuative once crit slots are secondary factor to hardpoint size limits set as sml med lrg Xl.

So,crit slots once again provide superior tool for limiting the hardpoint weapon size cap.Mechs with a Gauss rifle in arms but intact lower arm actuators may be assigned crit slot values between 7 and 9.Mechs with AC20s must have crit slots with values between 10 and 12.

Using size values distinct and seperate from crit slot restrictions is potentially to accomidating and also two restrictive.

For example, if class 3 ballistics included AC10s LB10X AC20 and Gauss rifles this potentially grants access to the largest Ballistics on frames that probably shouldn't. Annihilators would become an immediate issue with 2 AC20s and twin Gauss rifle builds spitting 70 point pinpoint alphas around only because the limits of class 1-3 sizing lumps an AC10 with the AC20 and Gauss.

And this can potentially go the other way.A Hunchback 4P has no native weapon system that requires more than a class 1 energy hardpoint. What hardpoint limits should the 4P have? what is to much what is to little? with only three sizes available to dial in on the sweet spot of ballance I forsee potential issues with many mech builds.

Sticking developers with this 1,2 or 3 size limit is not nearly as fluid as a mechanic that uses critical slots that we already have available to us.

And,as far as ballistics go I only see one potential hiccup with AC10s and Gauss both having 7 crit slots required. (I recommend dropping the AC10 down to 6 crit slots to repair this)

[Galenit]

Lykaon, on 10 October 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

Sticking developers with this 1,2 or 3 size limit is not nearly as fluid as a mechanic that uses critical slots that we already have available to us.

And,as far as ballistics go I only see one potential hiccup with AC10s and Gauss both having 7 crit slots required. (I recommend dropping the AC10 down to 6 crit slots to repair this)

The mix from mw4 and mwo.
You have hardpoints and crits for them.
Like 3b6, means you can have up to 3 ballistic hardpoints with together of 6 critpoints, 3mgs or ac2, 1 u/ac5 and 1 mg or ac2 or 1 ac10.

AC10 a 6 crits its a good idea, would be better scale with the other ballistics.

Edited by Galenit, 10 October 2014 - 02:31 AM.

[Harrison Kelly]

Tastian, on 09 October 2014 - 05:08 AM, said:

It could be tweaked by the mech for tier level and intention. For example a Dragon 1C has an AC2. It's obviously a tier 5 mech and a bit more leniency could be given; perhaps a Class 3 ballistic (AC10) allowed. A Catapult K2 ballistic point could be a Class 1 ballistic (MG, AC2 only) for aesthetic reasons. Also, tier 1 mechs like the Timberwolf could be much more strict; every ballistic hardpoint in the Prime and S variants are Class 1 and the ballistic hardpoint on the C right arm is a Class 2. This would prevent Gauss rifle meta builds.

You do realize that if you restrict the K2 to carrying just MGs or AC2s you practically kill the variant, right? It becomes a crap version of the Jester with no double AMS and more importantly, no Jump Jets. Pretty much all of the good K2 builds either rely on double-large ballistics (AC10, maybe UAC5s, definitely dual Gauss) or would be completely replaced by the Jester. The things that the K2 has going for it right now is its torso twist range and higher-mounted ballistics compared to the Cataphract. Well, let's just take that away and make it a tier 6 'Mech with junk hardpoints.

This is my real problem with sized Hardpoints. For every "problem" build it removes, it creates another problem, either by making a chassis completely unplayable or ignoring 'Mechs that are by default built to boat. Sure, you pretty much eliminate most JagerMech builds. Congratulations! The Timber Wolf is still doing basically all of the things it was doing before, and the Mad Dog (except for the cheesy SRM + LBX/20 builds) is as strong as ever.

Meanwhile, the Warhawk can still carry the exact same weapons loadout, while you managed to nerf Highlanders MORE by removing access to large energy weapons from all the variants. Good freaking job! Guess that's another chassis we don't need to be playing with.

Sized hardpoints solves nothing, and contrary to the fallacious argument being presented, doesn't open up diversity.

What this game really needs is a league where people who want to play StockWarrior Online can do so without trying to screw things for the rest of us.

I don't like getting hit by a rain of 70x LRMs or a JagerBomb either, but you know what? That's on me for letting myself 1) be in a spot where 70x LRMs can hit me on any map but Caustic or 2) letting one of glassiest-of-glass-cannon 'Mechs walk up to me and hit me with 2 of the hottest, slowest-firing, closest-range weapons in the game. You cannot fix all "problematic" builds with sized hardpoints, and you have yet to even convince me that said builds are a big enough problem to stray away from an existing solution (Ghost Heat), which while inelegant, doesn't completely ruin entire chassis.

Edited by Harrison Kelly, 10 October 2014 - 06:51 AM.

[Tastian]

Lykaon, on 10 October 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

But why reinvent the wheel?

We have crit slots already we do not have weapon sizes applied to every weapon.

What is gained from the reinvention of the wheel?

We can say a machine gun and an AC2 are small the AC5 and UAC5 are medium AC10s and LB10xs are large and AC20/UAC20 and Gauss are extra large but why?

The need becomes readily apparent when you look at Clan weapons. A Clan ERLarge Laser takes 1 crit slot - so limiting JUST by crit slots means the DireWhale Prime could carry 8 ERLarge Lasers. But if you put the ERLarge in Class 3 and the ERMedium in Class 2, the DireWhale Prime can carry a max of 4 ERLarge Lasers. The other example is Class 1 energy weapons - this changes the Hunchback 4P and Firestarter 8 to use less Medium Lasers.

But remember, the Devs could opt to hand out better class hardpoints to those mechs that need them; like the Dragon 1C.

[Tastian]

Harrison Kelly, on 10 October 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

You do realize that if you restrict the K2 to carrying just MGs or AC2s you practically kill the variant, right? It becomes a crap version of the Jester with no double AMS and more importantly, no Jump Jets. Pretty much all of the good K2 builds either rely on double-large ballistics (AC10, maybe UAC5s, definitely dual Gauss) or would be completely replaced by the Jester. The things that the K2 has going for it right now is its torso twist range and higher-mounted ballistics compared to the Cataphract. Well, let's just take that away and make it a tier 6 'Mech with junk hardpoints.

This is my real problem with sized Hardpoints. For every "problem" build it removes, it creates another problem, either by making a chassis completely unplayable or ignoring 'Mechs that are by default built to boat. Sure, you pretty much eliminate most JagerMech builds. Congratulations! The Timber Wolf is still doing basically all of the things it was doing before, and the Mad Dog (except for the cheesy SRM + LBX/20 builds) is as strong as ever.

Meanwhile, the Warhawk can still carry the exact same weapons loadout, while you managed to nerf Highlanders MORE by removing access to large energy weapons from all the variants. Good freaking job! Guess that's another chassis we don't need to be playing with.

Sized hardpoints solves nothing, and contrary to the fallacious argument being presented, doesn't open up diversity.

What this game really needs is a league where people who want to play StockWarrior Online can do so without trying to screw things for the rest of us.

I don't like getting hit by a rain of 70x LRMs or a JagerBomb either, but you know what? That's on me for letting myself 1) be in a spot where 70x LRMs can hit me on any map but Caustic or 2) letting one of glassiest-of-glass-cannon 'Mechs walk up to me and hit me with 2 of the hottest, slowest-firing, closest-range weapons in the game. You cannot fix all "problematic" builds with sized hardpoints, and you have yet to even convince me that said builds are a big enough problem to stray away from an existing solution (Ghost Heat), which while inelegant, doesn't completely ruin entire chassis.

This is a very good argument. But give me a moment to explain how things would improve. Sure you would knock a few mechs down a notch on the tier table. But you would also knock many more UP the tier table. Although Ghost heat could be removed, mech roles would become more apparent and we are not removing the quirk system.

You mentioned the K2 vs Jester. Consider this:

**K-2**
RA/LA
1x [Class 4] energy (PPC or below)

RT/LT
1x [Class 2] energy (Med/Med Pulse Laser or below)
1x [Class 1] ballistic (MG/AC2)

So, the K2 would be one of the only 65 ton mechs or below that could carry 2 high mounted PPCs.

**Jester**
RA/LA
1x [Class 3] energy (Large Laser or below)

RT/LT
1x [Class 2] energy (Med Laser or below)

CT
2x [Class 1] energy (Small/ Small Pulse Laser)


So, you see, the K2 can carry PPCs. The Jester cannot. Clear advantage.

Edited by Tastian, 10 October 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[Keeshu]

IMO Sized hard points just get rid of most "problem builds" by making them not possible. Anything that remains can be nerfed by a crazy amount with the quirk system (or anything else that the devs/players can think of).

As for the Jester outperforming the K2 if the K2 doesn't have ballistics. The Devs can always make exceptions and be more generous with hardpoints for mechs who need it more so it could still be possible to at least do 2 ac/2 or 2 Ac/5 if they wanted to let the K2 do so. Even if they don't do that, I prefer PPCs over Large lasers so I can just shoot and hide without having to spread the damage all over the enemy mech, so people will like to use the K2 over the Jester (assuming Large Laser and PPC are different weapon class sizes).

Once again with the Jagermechs they can always be generous and give it more hardpoints.

Timber Wolves would recieve a pretty nasty nerf due to these sized hardpoints. Afterall, the largest ballistics they could do is 1 AC/5, and 2 Machineguns (or 2 AC/2 if people really want machiengun slots allow ac/2s).
Then it couldn't mount PPCs (unless Large Pulses could fit in the same slot as PPCs). Leaving it to only use 4 SRMs or 4 LRMs with the Timby S variant with a few Medium/Large lasers making it a more Energy + Jumpjet + Armor focused version of the Splat Dog, or just do Mediums/Large + LRMs. It could possible do 4 ER Large, 3 ER Medium if it wanted a very hot build.
That's just the minimums though, if that's too much of a nerf to the Timby for you.


Warhawk is one of the largest problems and is one of the few stock builds that would need a mechanic to prevent the Warhawk from firing all the PPCs at the same time. Afterall the fluff even says it can't fire all the PPCs at the same time "While unable to fire all of the ER PPCs at once it could use a volley fire strategy to manage its heat" http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Warhawk


Sized hardpoints is not the one and only solution, but it sure as hell fixes a lot of things. Also there is a lot more Chassis + Variant variety when every variant can fulfill a niche. With how basic the hardpoints are now, that will not be done well (Quirks for everyone will help a lot, but it cannot be the only thing to make each mech different).

[Reverendk]

If you've read this month's High Elo Low Drag mailer, you know that I'm very leery of the sized hardpoints as a balancing mechanic. The hard limits on weapons that can be applied will likely drive people to specific variants and continue the "everybody uses this one mech" problem, but with a little different flavor on it. Maybe cherry. Platinum level subscribers are well aware that from the womb to the tomb I'll champion the AC10 in all its forms and I do not relish a world where I can't mount one on a mech with a ballistic hardpoint and enough free weight. It's just good game design, like letting my L-beams hit where the little plus sign says they are going to hit. Or the little circle. I don't discriminate.


Cheers
RK
AGTFSAJ (Ain't got time for shuck'n and jive'n)
HELDCGGFTFFPOHITCE-GNPGCNTFCLEEWPA-JURSSRNPCRSOLD Clan

[IceSerpent]

Reverendk, on 10 October 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

If you've read this month's High Elo Low Drag mailer, you know that I'm very leery of the sized hardpoints as a balancing mechanic. The hard limits on weapons that can be applied will likely drive people to specific variants and continue the "everybody uses this one mech" problem, but with a little different flavor on it. Maybe cherry. Platinum level subscribers are well aware that from the womb to the tomb I'll champion the AC10 in all its forms and I do not relish a world where I can't mount one on a mech with a ballistic hardpoint and enough free weight. It's just good game design, like letting my L-beams hit where the little plus sign says they are going to hit. Or the little circle. I don't discriminate.

To use your own example, that "everybody uses this one mech" problem would only exist if everybody championed the AC10. This is not the case - for example I'll take AC20 over AC10 most of the time. So, with you looking for a mech that can pack 10s and me looking for one that can pack 20s, we're very likely to pick different rides.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Im for hard-points limitation. But dont take away too much customization especially when a mech isn't OP to begin with.

This is my K2 build, and I enjoy it, I'm pretty sure I'm not OP, far from it.

CPLT-K2

[Keeshu]

I would have to take a look at all the mechs and imagine all their hardpoints to determine whether or not the K2 should have the ability to mount larger ballistics or not. Afterall, Jagermech already fulfills the ballistic 65 ton mech role.
Though just looking at the K2 itself, I think it shouldn't mount ac/10s or anything greater. It's supposed to be an Energy boat, not a ballistic boat (but it can have some ballistic support, so ac/2 is probably alright, and I'm on the edge about ac/5s).

But ultimately it's up to PGI. I have a feeling they'd leave the super large ballistic hardpoints on the K2 because it's such an old mech and a lot of people grew attached to it. They seem to cater to the fans a bunch (even if there are some people that think otherwise)