336 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

DocBach, on 09 October 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

I think the purpose of hard point sizes is to make players make choices and trade offs in choosing a chassis rather than just using the one chassis that rules them all. Don't get me wrong, my Mad Cat is cool and all but now I don't really have much of a reason to use anything else in the game.

The Mad Cat didn't have any flaws in Tabletop either. Frankly, mechs that made tradeoffs in TT weren't that popular.

The pro-sizes crowd are clinging to this bizzare notion that competitive players are willing to make tradeoffs, or allow themselves to have weaknesses that can be exploited. That just doesn't happen in comp. If something has a weakness that can be exploited, it will be exploited ruthlessly.

You might be able to get the game to the point where everything has at least one weakness, but then the metagame centers around finding the mech(s) with the smallest number of weaknesses and covering that weakness by any means necessary. See the Highlander/Pop Tart metagame that dominated last year. Teams would spawn, run to a safe place on the map, and camp there until the timer ran out or the enemy team got impatient and charged their superior position. Did the pop-tart Highlander have significant weaknesses? You becha. It was a huge 90 ton mech with an easily destroyed XL engine, a slow rate of fire, poor DPS, and pretty terrible heat efficiency. Was it so good on other fronts that competitive teams developed an entire metagame around covering those weaknesses and maximizing its strengths to the point of near invincibility? You're darn tootin'.

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 09 October 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

They're TT grognards, but they don't remember that 99.5% of TT mechs are complete and utter garbage. I still remember when I'd take nothing by tanks, artillery, infantry, and aerospace assets and absolutely wreck any and ALL mech-centric forces. Because stock mechs are a complete wash except for a VERY select few.

This guy gets it. The way to win TT was to field a ton of tanks/infantry/battle armor and one or two really solid mech designs that can act like fast cavalry. I've kicked the tar out of -lots- of pure-mech teams with combined arms, because frankly most TT mechs, as you say, are trash. Fun for roleplayers or challenging yourself, but when competing for cash and fabulous prizes they're not worth the pewter they're cast from.

Edited by Josef Nader, 09 October 2014 - 04:45 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 09 October 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

They're TT grognards, but they don't remember that 99.5% of TT mechs are complete and utter garbage. I still remember when I'd take nothing by tanks, artillery, infantry, and aerospace assets and absolutely wreck any and ALL mech-centric forces. Because stock mechs are a complete wash except for a VERY select few.

I think the reason 99.5% of 'Mechs in the board game were garbage was like, you know, to try to prevent certain units from completely facerolling without any weakness or downside. That is not to say that the Devastator or Pillager would not be totally awesome in MWO, even stock or close to it. The problem with MWO's balance is not just that 'Mechs have so much freedom to carry just what is efficient, they can shoot them all into the same hole, too. Systems like ghost heat mitigate some of it, but further revisions or balance passes could bring more parity between 'Mechs in the game.

As for the grognard remark -- I suppose the fact that this game is touted not only as MechWarrior, but as "a Battletech Game" might mean that some portion of the player base may want this game to be a faithful representation of that franchise.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

I think the reason 99.5% of 'Mechs in the board game were garbage was like, you know, to try to prevent certain units from completely facerolling without any weakness or downside. That is not to say that the Devastator or Pillager would not be totally awesome in MWO, even stock or close to it.

As for the grognard remark -- I suppose the fact that this game is touted not only as MechWarrior, but as "a Battletech Game" might mean that some portion of the player base may want this game to be a faithful representation of that franchise.

As a grognard myself, let me assure you that this game -is- a faithful representation of that franchise. A very small handful of mechs dominate as "best in class", while the rest are relegated for funsies. The same guns that kick arse in TT kick arse here, and a lot of the configurations that kick arse in TT kick arse here.

This is the closest to TT Battletech that MechWarrior has ever been. Changing the current hardpoint system to a sized system only drives it farther away from TT.

[1453 R]

DocBach, on 09 October 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

I think the purpose of hard point sizes is to make players make choices and trade offs in choosing a chassis rather than just using the one chassis that rules them all. Don't get me wrong, my Mad Cat is cool and all but now I don't really have much of a reason to use anything else in the game.

The issue I have is that the enhanced quirk system does the exact same thing, except without destroying ninety-nine out of a hundred existing builds.

The Hunchback example has been beaten to death, but it's still the easiest, most clear-cut example one can throw out there. You take an AC/20 SHD and pit it against an AC/20 HBK in the current game, and there's no real contest. The SHD has vastly superior hitboxes and jump capability, and is indeed just as good at using that big stonkin' cannon.

But what if it wasn't as good at using that big stonkin' cannon?

What if the HBK, considered an infighting, AC/20 specialist, had 25% CDR and, say...15% improved shot velocity for the AC/20, as well as structural reinforcements in its RT to keep the gun intact for longer? All of a sudden, the Shadow Hawk has better hitboxes and jump capability...but the HBK's faster-firing, more accurate AC/20 is far and away superior to the SHD's barebones stock stats version of the gun. An AC/20 SHD is suddenly in a whole lot of trouble if it fights an AC/20 HBK, because it's harder for the SHD to rip off the HBK's gun due to the structural buffs, and the HBK in the meantime is able to kick out eighty damage from its autocannon in the same space of time the SHD kicks out sixty. The Hunchback's improved agility helps it defend its ruggedized hunch as well, and all of a sudden there's some real, honest, meaty choices to be made in the realm of an AC/20 medium 'Mech!

Do go you go with the sturdy Shadow Hawk, take advantage of its excellent hitboxes to make a rugged, reliable generalist brawler? Do you go with the nimble, easily-missed Blackjack, trading durability and endurance for a small profile in order to create an agile hit-and-fade striker? or do you go with the raw aggression and heavy DPS of the Hunchback, using the Hunchback's improved AC/20 to rip big bleeding chunks off other, larger 'Mechs in support of your team?

Doesn't the chance to make that choice sound awesome?

They're all AC/20 mediums, and yet they all fulfill different purposes and appeal to different playstyles. You have three different choices of 'Mech, instead of being forced to deal with the Hunchback UND ONLY ZE HUNCHBACK if you want an AC/20 medium. And can't afford a Wanger like all the cool kids.

Edited by 1453 R, 09 October 2014 - 04:59 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

I think the reason 99.5% of 'Mechs in the board game were garbage was like, you know, to try to prevent certain units from completely facerolling without any weakness or downside. That is not to say that the Devastator or Pillager would not be totally awesome in MWO, even stock or close to it.

That's a terrible excuse and you know it. Mechs in TT tried to be jacks. Which meant that if one wandered into Demolisher territory, it'd get ganked. If one wandered into a field with an Alacorn overlooking it, it'd get ganked. Oh, what's this? A Devastator? Let me bash it's skull in with some Aero assets while it floundered in the mud.

Quote

As for the grognard remark -- I suppose the fact that this game is touted not only as MechWarrior, but as "a Battletech Game" might mean that some portion of the player base may want this game to be a faithful representation of that franchise.

No, the previous 4 iterations of the MW franchise were terrible representations of BT.

MWO is the closest to the actual representation of mech on mech combat. The only game that ever got close to BT was MWLL. And if you played it, only n00bs used mechs. Everyone else used tanks and aero.

I'm also a huge BT grognard. And this game is actually better balanced than BT ever even DREAMT of being.

[DocBach]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

This is the closest to TT Battletech that MechWarrior has ever been. Changing the current hardpoint system to a sized system only drives it farther away from TT.

If you want to get technical, mechanically, I agree with this statement -- weapons feel the closest to how I think they should to the lore. If we want to get in detail with the customization, though, the customization rules for advanced campaigns that came out in the rules expansions pretty much limit 'Mechs customization to 1-1 swaps of weapons the same size or smaller, unless you pay millions upon millions of c-bills to have it rebuilt at a dedicated 'Mech facility. Pretty much only major characters in the universe had the kind of loadouts we can make in MWO.

If there was a hardpoint limiting system put in the game, I'd like to see hero and champion 'mechs (since they're suppose to be used by the above mentioned major characters) have less restrictions, or allow greater customization by means of mech modules or some other pay wall like a pilot skill unlock or even just a bunch of c-bills or MC to increase customizing options.

Edited by DocBach, 09 October 2014 - 04:54 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

This guy gets it. The way to win TT was to field a ton of tanks/infantry/battle armor and one or two really solid mech designs that can act like fast cavalry. I've kicked the tar out of -lots- of pure-mech teams with combined arms, because frankly most TT mechs, as you say, are trash. Fun for roleplayers or challenging yourself, but when competing for cash and fabulous prizes they're not worth the pewter they're cast from.

While true, the MWO can take things further by making sure that mechs with flaws have sizable benefits to counter it. That is what role warfare is about.

Any mech that has very few flaws need to not be able to excel at everything.

The quirks as proposed seem to recognise this somewhat with top tier mechs not getting anything better because usually just the geometry of the mech and its comparative tonnage in its class is what defines its top tierness.

If the raven is a bad mech right now and its role is all about sensors ... quirks will help it have a niche role.

Hardpoints are just another way to help define these things but they cannot exist on thier own as role warfare definers, or mech balancers its just a tool for mech differentiation.

Who cares is a mech was bad in TT - lets make as many viable here as possible even in a niche capacity. As you say though flaws are exploited mercilessly so the benefits of a mech with significant flaws need to be significant too

[Josef Nader]

Again, there's a big difference between pugstomper viable, team play viable, and comp viable.

Every mech in the game is viable in the first catagory as it is right now. I know, as I've spent a big chunk of time playing with underplayed chassis to make them viable in some capacity. I've got nearly every mech in my stable above a 1:1 KDR, which is my baseline for pug viability.

Team Play mechs are cut down to about a quarter of the current stable. Quirks might buff this up. Hopefully it will buff it up to a much higher number. I'd like to see more of my stable be viable choices when playing in the group cue.

As far as competitive play? The number of viable mechs in comp isn't going to get any bigger. The mechs that are in the top tier might change around a bit once we get quirks, but otherwise nothing is going to change.

It's important to demarcate what level of play we're talking about here. Sized hardpoints do nothing for any of these levels. Quirks help bump mechs up to group play competitiveness.

[Asmudius Heng]

Sure i agree mostly. The top end meta will always narrow down.

However PGI can make the meta at all levels much wider and more nuanced.

I am quite happy with the quirks system coming, but i dont think hardpoints are a bogeyman either.

[DocBach]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

As far as competitive play? The number of viable mechs in comp isn't going to get any bigger. The mechs that are in the top tier might change around a bit once we get quirks, but otherwise nothing is going to change.

It's important to demarcate what level of play we're talking about here. Sized hardpoints do nothing for any of these levels. Quirks help bump mechs up to group play competitiveness.

Competitive players are a different breed, and whatever is deemed "THE BEST" no matter what balance passes or revision the game goes through, they will use it.

On the non-competitive scene, for the vast majority of players, sized hard points would make most of the builds that you see pugs using that make you go "WTF dude, why didn't you just use *whatever is the FOTM with current balance pass* perhaps a little more viable as like 1543 said, the sort of design communism where every 'Mech is equally bad might level the playing field for those clueless to "the meta."

Looking at the positives of a hardpoint system, it seems that kitting out a 'Mech would be a lot cheaper (since a lot of 'Mechs wouldn't be able to use most of the tonnage unless they do something like upgrade a large laser to a pulse or something), so it would be easier for the new player to customize his 'Mech or other variants they need to master along with it.

Downsides, you lose the ability to run whatever on any chassis. Certain death stars could become the only death stars, meaning whatever counters you might have had with a lower tier 'Mech has an even greater disparity between it. I think most of these would be Clan 'Mechs with the exception of the King Crab in this time line, which would make Clan players happy I guess -- could be balanced out with 10 vs 12 or something like that, not sure since we don't have such a system. We could test it independently in some private matches with suggested restrictions on builds to see how it works

Either way, I can roll with it. I've been with the game since I heard about it a week after it was announced and I'll be with it probably until the servers shut down. Hardpoint restrictions? Fine, whatever, cool, I'll find what works and I'll use it. No restrictions? Fine, whatever, cool, I'll find out what works and I'll use it.

[nitra]

Just reading through the posts in this topic it really underscores the real problem as it has been all along .

pinpoint damage model.

no matter how limited you make mechs even if we go stock only this will always be the problem forcing arbitrary rules to prevent mechs such as the "gauss kitty" does nothing to alleviate it.

you cannot alleviate the effects of pinpoint damage through a hard point limitation system

the damage model encourages / mandates that players pick mechs that best allow them to place this damage .

limited hardpoints will only encourage players picking those mechs which place that damage better.

Also those in favor of more hardpoint limitations keep deluding themselves they will create more roles to fufill on the battlefield .

Unfortunately there is no roles to fill in this game ... there is none. nada. you can pretend all you want but in the end that role is imaginary and has too lil bearing how the game will play out.

hard point limitations does not magically create these roles.

it does however create the familiar tired and true class system that has become de rigueur
of so many mmos its sickening.

This is what those who favor stricter hardpoint limitations want to achieve . they want a class for each mech.

A rigorous standard that the mech is glued to. sure you can swap out a few hard points but dont get too wild because then you will have crossed what is considered acceptable and should look at another class that is a closer fit . rather it is or is not ideal for what you want .

this they beleive will create a need to purchase other mechs and lead to greater diversity. but as every other class based mmo has shown the players follow the standard templates because straying from them has no benifits. i.e. they will follow what ever meta becomes the standard when a system like this comes into play. (they already are in some circumstances, hard point limitations will make it even worse)

this alone highlights one of the great things about mechwarrior online the current customization system allows for the player to create a mech which they can identify as their own . when they win with that mech they get a feeling of accomplishment . now granted not everyone has this same gameplay experience but i assure you there is a great number out there who do.

this feeling of accomplishment is pretty much removed or diminished with the hardpoint systems being discussed because then it creates a different style of play. ( instead of lets create something cool and deadly it now becomes lets look at the guide and find out which is the best mech to run .) Some people who advocate the hardpoint limitations system also want this as it "simplifies the game"

which removes a great deal from the game and becomes more bland and more akin to all the other vanilla fps out there.

to summarize ..


hardpoint limitations does nothing for creating a diversified role warfare oriented game environment.

hardpoint limitations does nothing for the pinpoint damage system.

hardpoint limitations does not add anything to the game it instead remove more gameplay elements rather than it creates.


and last

hardpoint limitation system is nothing more than your typical class based battle system already in place in many mmos.

Edited by nitra, 09 October 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[DocBach]

nitra, on 09 October 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Just reading through the posts in this topic it really underscores the real problem as it has been all along .

pinpoint damage model.

no matter how limited you make mechs even if we go stock only this will always be the problem forcing arbitrary rules to prevent mechs such as the "gauss kitty" does nothing to alleviate it.

you cannot alleviate the effects of pinpoint damage through a hard point limitation system

the damage model encourages / mandates that players pick mechs that best allow them to place this damage .

limited hardpoints will only encourage players picking those mechs which place that damage better.

Also those in favor of more hardpoint limitations keep deluding themselves they will create more roles to fufill on the battlefield .

Unfortunately there is no roles to fill in this game ... there is none. nada. you can pretend all you want but in the end that role is imaginary and has too lil bearing how the game will play out.

hard point limitations does not magically create these roles.

it does however create the familiar tired and true class system that has become de rigueur
of so many mmos its sickening.

This is what those who favor stricter hardpoint limitations want to achieve . they want a class for each mech.

A rigorous standard that the mech is glued to. sure you can swap out a few hard points but dont get too wild because then you will have crossed what is considered acceptable and should look at another class that is a closer fit . rather it is or is not ideal for what you want .

this they beleive will create a need to purchase other mechs and lead to greater diversity. but as every other class based mmo has shown the players follow the standard templates because straying from them has no benifits. i.e. they will follow what ever meta becomes the standard when a system like this comes into play. (they already are in some circumstances, hard point limitations will make it even worse)

this alone highlights one of the great things about mechwarrior online the current customization system allows for the player to create a mech which they can identify as their own . when they win with that mech they get a feeling of accomplishment . now granted not everyone has this same gameplay experience but i assure you there is a great number out there who do.

this feeling of accomplishment is pretty much removed or diminished with the hardpoint systems being discussed because then it creates a different style of play. ( instead of lets create something cool and deadly it now becomes lets look at the guide and find out which is the best mech to run .) Some people who advocate the hardpoint limitations system also want this as it "simplifies the game"

which removes a great deal from the game and becomes more bland and more akin to all the other vanilla fps out there.

to summarize ..


hardpoint limitations does nothing for creating a diversified role warfare oriented game environment.

hardpoint limitations does nothing for the pinpoint damage system.

hardpoint limitations does not add anything to the game it instead remove more gameplay elements rather than it creates.


and last

hardpoint limitation system is nothing more than your typical class based battle system already in place in many mmos.

Pretty much classes were advertised as one of the design pillars of this game, "Role warfare." Currently though, most mechs can do whichever role they like. I can see where a different hard point system could lead to people using different chassis of mechs, but probably most would just flock to whatever is perceived to be the best at boating whatever their favorite weapon system was.

[Elkfire]

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic of sized hardpoints, because I honestly don't care, but...

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

I see a lot of folks posting about a "sized" hardpoint system.

Let me assure you that nobody really wants that.

....how did you manage to contradict yourself in the second sentence of your OP?

Edited by Elkfire, 09 October 2014 - 07:40 PM.

[Ultimax]

Elkfire, on 09 October 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic of sized hardpoints, because I honestly don't care, but...


....how did you manage to contradict yourself in the second sentence of your OP?

He meant "nobody awesome".

[Josef Nader]

Ultimatum X, on 09 October 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

He meant "nobody awesome".

[ApolloKaras]

Elkfire, on 09 October 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic of sized hardpoints, because I honestly don't care, but...


....how did you manage to contradict yourself in the second sentence of your OP?

Several threads posted by a 4 people or more people (which is a lot on the same subject vs how many read the boards... I dont see a contradiction.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

1453 R, on 09 October 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Naïve, short-sighted, and showing a complete lack of understanding of how game balance and high-level competition works.

Destroy the Shadow Hawk and the Griffon – and make no mistake, you would be destroying them by restricting them to their stock armaments, not “slightly nerfing them in a logical and intuitive manner” – and no, there wouldn’t be more than two obvious “best” choices for IS medium. The game would fluctuate for a while as people sought out the next ‘Mech which accomplished what the Shadow Hawk and Griffon used to accomplish as much as possible, and then that would be the obvious best choice for IS medium. And you folks would move on to trying to find some obscure twisting of the lore and the TT canon to ruin that ‘Mech, too.

Diversity is achieved by making more than one style of play viable. As it stands, not all styles of play are viable. Restricting those viable styles of play from use on certain chassis doesn’t make them less viable, or make other styles of play more viable. It simply restricts the number of ‘Mechs capable of competing at the high end.

Even if the Awesome was the only ‘Mech in the game capable of mounting PPCs, it would be a garbage ‘Mech because it’s the size of Massachusetts and very easy to kill. Even if the Hunchback was the only ‘Mech in the game capable of mounting an AC/20, it would be a sub-optimal medium because of much the same reason the Awesome is – it’s pretty easy and straightforward to rip the hunch off a Hunchback and declaw it.

The solution is to look at each chassis individually and address its weaknesses in some way, as well as accentuating its strengths, in order to try and mitigate crippling flaws with a given ‘Mech and give it a role beyond rookie trap. Maaaaan, if only there was a system in the game that could be used to help shroe up a ‘Mech’s weaknesses and accentuate its strong points, help give it a unique identity without taking away from the identities and capabilities of ‘Mechs that are already good just to make people feel less bad about taking a Hunchback over a Shadow Hawk. That would be a pretty killer system. Why, I bet it could even be used to help address the remaining Clan/IS imbalances without ruining the sub-par Clan ‘Mechs any more, or making Ghost Heat even more opaque and nonsensical than it already is!

I really wish we had a system like that. It’d be such a helpful way to target specific problems in the game and fix them locally instead of blanket nerfhammering the entire game over and over and over and over again because Victors and Timber Wolves give people conniptions.

Play with us in monday. Actually hunch and awesome are one of the best mechs around. You will maybe even understood why hard points sizes would possibly do good for gameplay.

Anyway I think that this poor system that we have now its a reason why mwo will die in long run. At some point no body except hard core collectors will bay new meks. No new meks selling mean MWO death in other words.

But hell, keep your dummy dumbed system, just give me a stock mode and I will even approvecompletely lack of hard points. Mount and Boat whatever you want. Im sure many of those folks will be more then happy to run full custom super creativity individual same build on all meks by all players.

[Jun Watarase]

Still not getting the anti-sized hardpoint arguments here.

Lets say the awesome was the only mech who could mount 3x large energy weapons like PPCs. Furthermore it had quirks to compensate for its huge size (or PGI became intelligent and made the model smaller, etc) and fire 3x large energy weapons without ghost heat.

Would people have been boating 6x PPCs on the stalker? No, because they would have been using lasers on the stalkers instead. With missles. If they wanted to use 3x large energy weapons, they would have gone to the awesome. Oh and we would never had the 6x PPC stalker issue which caused the whole ghost heat mess in the first place.

MWO would be a very different game now.

Also the griffin would actually be good because it would be one of the few medium mechs who could mount a PPC. Of course they would be able to swap the LRMs for SRMs if they wanted. They just wouldnt be able to do things like mount dual guass on the jagermech.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 09 October 2014 - 10:23 PM.

[1453 R]

Jun Watarase, on 09 October 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

Still not getting the anti-sized hardpoint arguments here.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=11&l=stock

There ya go. Now you should understand just fine.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

There is a lot of rhetoric from people saying that sized hardpoints kill diversity, that people suggesting it have no idea how this game works (I lol at this one every time), or that mechs will be limited to stock hardpoint sizes (still not sure where this one comes from but is definitely a bad assumption), blah blah blah.
So to set the record straight, let's look at the only example in which sized hardpoints were used, MW4 something some of us have at least some experience in albeit possibly limited.

Now vanilla MW4 and the Mekpaks boiled down to what mechs could boat the most LL whether they be red or green. Unfortunately both versions suffered from bad weapon balance that downplayed the effect of sized hardpoints and particularly got worse with each new mekpak.

Hardcore (HC) changed a few things on top of the sized hardpoints, so we must keep these in mind (ironically some have been suggested in some manner for MWO) which are listed below.

• Microslot system - 1 slot under the old system translated to 3 slots under the new system, allowed for little more variation between weapon sizes (UAC5 was bigger than a UAC2 for example).
  
• Heat Management - Dissipation was slowed across the board, max heats were lowered but still scaled by mech tonnage. Around 30-50 for XLs, 37.5-62.5 for Light engines, 45-75 for Standards.
  
• Manueverability - Probably the most controversial changes, its been a while but mechs handled more like they do in MWO than they did in vanilla MW4.
  
• Jump Jets - Jump Jets here allowed ALL mechs to travel into space like the SDR-5V when it first came out thanks to "superjumping" but also took 30 seconds to fully recharge.
  
• Free Tonnage - Mechs had the same free tonnage as their TT counterparts which meant you had to downgrade your engine quite a bit to try and fit 2 Gauss on a Summoner (though it couldn't mount it anyway thanks to hardpoints). Armor was also put more in-line with TT from amount per section to total amount, just a small note.
  
• Tonnage Based Drop Decs - Allowed for 'pocket' mechs, which were like some sort of larger cousin with either drawbacks in heat management, speed, or survivability. This was generally done to allow another mech to switch up to a more optimized build, unfortunately it was more suitable towards League matches than anything.

So let's see how bad the diversity of the meta was considering all the various things listed above ON TOP of sized hardpoints keeping in mind, these were considering COMPETITIVE loadouts:

• Dire Wolf Prime (2 CapPPC, 2 Guass)
  
• Dire Wolf Widowmaker (8-9 UAC2s)
  
• Warthog (ECM, BAP, ERPPC, Gauss, 2 Plasma Rifles, backup missiles)
  
• Deimos (5 UAC5 or 6-7 UAC2)
  
• Longbow LGB-OW (MRM120)
  
• Longbow LGB-12C (ALRM70)
  
• Marauder IIC (2 CapPPC, ERPPC, JJs)
  
• Stalker STK-8S (2 CapPPC, Hvy Gauss, Spec Armor)
  
• Warhawk Prime (2 ERPPC, 2 Gauss)
  
• Awesome AWS-9Q (ECM, 4 PPC)
  
• Canis (JJs, 4 ERLL, Spec Armor)
  
• Gargoyle Prime (2 LBX20 or 2 UAC20, lightest twin LBX20 mech allowed it to have a niche)
  
• Black Knight BL-6-KNT (BAP, JJs, 5 LL)
  
• Marauder MAD-5L (ECM, 2 CapPPCs, PPC or 5 LL)
  
• Maraudar MAD-5S (2 PPC, Gauss)
  
• Marauder MAD-9S (ECM, BAP, 2 ERPPC, Lt Gauss)
  
• Thanatos TNS-4S (ECM, Hvy Gauss, 3 LL, niche mech)
  
• Timber Wolf B (LAMS, 4 UAC5)
  
• Timber Wolf S (2 Clan AIV, JJs)
  
• Archer ARC-7L (ECM, JJs, MRM80)
  
• Avatar AV1-OA (JJs, 3 RAC2)
  
• Avatar AV1-OE (ECM, 2 RAC5, 2 RL15)
  
• Grizzly (CapPPC, Plasma, Gauss, JJs)
  
• Nemesis NMS-1S aka Tenchi (JJs, 2 Lt Gauss, 2 PPC some other JJ brawler builds)
  
• Nova Cat Prime (5 ERLL or the rarer 3 ERPPC)
  
• Nova Cat A (4 ERLL, JJs)
  
• Nova Cat E (ATM36 or 6 SSRM6s)
  
• Catapult CPLT-C5 (JJs, MRM100)
  
• Cauldron Born Prime (Gauss, 3 Plasma Rifle)
  
• Cauldron Born B (4 ERLPL or 4 HLL)
  
• Crusader CRD-8S (JJs, Hvy Gauss, 2 LL)
  
• Hellbringer C (UAC20, 2 UAC10s or 4 UAC5)
  
• Thunderbolt TDR-10SE (ECM, JJs, 3 PPCs)
  
• Vulture Mark II (2 ERLPL, 2 ATM9s)
  
• Hellfire 1 (2 CapPPC, Plasma Rifle or 3 ERLPL)
  
• Mad Dog Prime (8 SSRM4 or 8 LRM5s, 2 CSLRM20s or 2 LRM20s, 2 ERPPCs)
  
• Mad Dog C (3 UAC5s or 2 UAC10s, Spec Armor)
  
• Rifleman RFL-7M (ECM, 2 RAC5, many lasers)
  
• Black Lanner Prime (ECM, BAP, 2 ERLL, HLL)
  
• Bushwacker BSW-S2 (LAMS, 2 LBX10s, 2 ML or 2 MRM30s)
  
• Bushwacker BSW-L1 (HVAC20, LL)
  
• Griffin GRF-1N (JJs, 4 LL)
  
• Griffin GRF-6CS (ECM, JJs, CapPPC, Lt Gauss)
  
• Stormcrow Prime (ATM30 or 6-7 SSRM4s)
  
• Nova Prime (15 ERSPL, niche mech due to bad torso twist)
  
• Gesu (LBX20, backup heavy lasers or 3 ERLL or Thumper/Long Tom)
  
• Hollander II BZK-F5 (LBX20, backup laser or Thumper/Long Tom or the rarer Hvy Gauss variant)
  
• Shadow Cat Prime (3 ERLL, JJs, BAP)
  
• Shadow Cat B (BAP, ECM, JJs, and 2 ERLL or LRM35-40)
  
• Arctic Wolf (6 SSRM4 or LRM60, the latter being a niche no/team radar harasser)
  
• Chimera CMA-1S (JJs, LBX20, 2 ML, was a niche JJ brawler)
  
• Initiate INI-02 (LAMS, MRM60)
  
• Adder Prime (5 HML)
  
• Cougar Prime (6 SSRM4)
  
• Cougar H (ECM, JJs, and CapPPC or 2 ERLL)
  
• Jenner IIC (5 SSRM4, JJs)
  
• Owens OW-1 (3 RL15s, niche suicide bomber-esque mech)
  
• Raven RVN-3L (ECM, BAP, ALRM20)
  
• Wolfhound WLF-1 (CapPPC, 2 ML)
  
• Kit Fox (ECM, BAP, and 2 ERLL or LRM30)
  
• Fire Falcon (2 HLL, 2 ERML, this was a niche no/team radar 'assassin' mech)
  
• Solitaire (3 HML, Spec Armor)

That's quite the list especially given that MWO has more unique models than HC did. If HC didn't have sized hardpoints, CapPPCs would've run rampant and the Plasma Rifle would've never had a purpose (it was an IS PPC for the clans that was smaller than the ERPPC). Sure there are some glaring issues with weapon diversity and the IS have a few less usable builds but overall it was still an enjoyable mod that once again, saw diversity both between models of the same chassis, and the amongst the chassis' themselves.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 October 2014 - 11:50 PM.