336 replies to this topic

[Galenit]

Ultimatum X, on 10 October 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Right now in this game, that VTR 9S Brawler is the stronger build.

The meta has changed, and it is not PPC centric.

Just read what docbach said ...

You are turning and twisting around.
If we go after the meta, the aws is dead and there is no problem if its deleted with the hardpoints because its then dead as you said ...

Or maybe it will come back, like some other mechs, because of the hardpoints ...

[DocBach]

Xarian, on 10 October 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

The Vulture is essentially the Clan version of the Catapult, so it makes sense that they would have similar builds.

At least one variant of the Jagermech should be able to mount twin Gauss; probably the JM6-S, since the canonical JM6-DG (carrying twin gauss) is closest to the JM6-S compared to the -A and the -DD. As far as MWO hardpoints go, the DD actually makes the least sense, since it's supposed to be the "dakka spam" variant. Also, the -S is generally considered to be the worst variant, so it'd give people a reason to keep one around (though honestly, if you're running a JM6 using 2x Gauss currently, it doesn't matter which variant you use).

The K2 is a really weird catapult variant. It's basically a reverse JM6-FB; energy in the arms, ballistics in the torsos. Due to the location of the Gauss rifles, it's blatantly inferior to the JM6 Gauss builds - allowing it to carry twin Gauss wouldn't have any real effect on game balance. Quirks might change things one way or another, but if you're going to allow the JM6 to have twin Gauss, then the K2 should also.

The biggest point to take away, however, is that the different variants and chassis would have distinctively different abilities. The Catapult would become something that players who wanted to use something that didn't have a charge up delay or ammo restrictions or a 15 point nuke when it blew up to take, where as a variant of the Jagermech could still have two Gauss rifles for players who want to use a configuration like that. The dual gauss build might not be possible on all of the variants it currently is, but that doesn't mean that it is taken out of the game completely.

We would also be guaranteed to see other variants of the Jagermech besides the dual gauss builds, as players are still forced to use the other configurations to elite or master their skill trees -- the difference now being that players can't just take the same two gauss rifles and plop them in each of their variants as they go through turning every different variant into the same 'Mech like they currently can.

That said, there are a lot of people with a lot of 'Mechs in their garages that would be pissed off if they had to redo all of their builds by rebuying everything. Any change this big, like the module change, should get players full refunds on chassis they want to sell back.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 12:07 PM.

[Ultimax]

Xarian, on 10 October 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

The K2 is a really weird catapult variant. It's basically a reverse JM6-FB; energy in the arms, ballistics in the torsos. Due to the location of the Gauss rifles, it's blatantly inferior to the JM6 Gauss builds - allowing it to carry twin Gauss wouldn't have any real effect on game balance. Quirks might change things one way or another, but if you're going to allow the JM6 to have twin Gauss, then the K2 should also. However, as far as Quirks go, I'd really like to see the K2 be a PPC-centered mech more than other heavies of its class. The whole purpose for the DCMS removing the missile pods was to add PPCs.

What's really sad is all of the gnashing of teeth over the K2 mounting Dual Gauss, when even with that build available it is at best a T3 mech.

On top of that it is one of the few IS Heavy mechs that can even mount Dual Gauss - which is a uniqueness in and of itself, as well as an advantage over clan Heavies that struggle with the build as they can't lower their engines or remove heatsinks to make it very viable.

[IceSerpent]

occusoj, on 10 October 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

If "we", "the community" determine/decide that, who the is "we"? The comp players? The pugs? Just the paying ones? All of em? Will there be a vote on each mech?

I would say yes - a vote on mechs that are being complained about either because they are "too good" or "too bad". PGI creates a poll (i.e. how many PPCs should DWF be able to carry: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and we vote.

[DocBach]

Ultimatum X, on 10 October 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

What's really sad is all of the gnashing of teeth over the K2 mounting Dual Gauss, when even with that build available it is at best a T3 mech.

On top of that it is one of the few IS Heavy mechs that can even mount Dual Gauss - which is a uniqueness in and of itself, as well as an advantage over clan Heavies that struggle with the build as they can't lower their engines or remove heatsinks to make it very viable.

Why is dual gauss on the K2 unique? The Jagermech does it, with better hitboxes and higher weapon mounts, better -- the K2 is pretty much only used by players who don't know any better.

However, if the high mounted energy weapons were used for the PPC's it can carry, in a system where PPC's are less common because few 'Mechs had the hardpoints to mount them (we'd need to see revision on them as they got over nerfed individually to punish players who boat them, which would no longer be possible with hardpoint restrictions), where a Jagermech could not carry said PPC's, it would have its own niche it could fill better than other 'Mechs.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Xarian]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

The biggest point to take away, however, is that the different variants and chassis would have distinctively different abilities. The Catapult would become something that players who wanted to use something that didn't have a charge up delay or ammo restrictions or a 15 point nuke when it blew up to take, where as a variant of the Jagermech could still have two Gauss rifles for players who want to use a configuration like that. The dual gauss build might not be possible on all of the variants it currently is, but that doesn't mean that it is taken out of the game completely.

We would also be guaranteed to see other variants of the Jagermech besides the dual gauss builds, as players are still forced to use the other configurations to elite or master their skill trees -- the difference now being that players can't just take the same two gauss rifles and plop them in each of their variants as they go through turning every different variant into the same 'Mech like they currently can.

That said, there are a lot of people with a lot of 'Mechs in their garages that would be pissed off if they had to redo all of their builds by rebuying everything. Any change this big, like the module change, should get players full refunds on chassis they want to sell back.

I agree with you, but I'm thinking in terms of the overall health of the game (in other words, competitive builds) rather than restricting specific variants just for the sake of forcing diversity. If someone has access to a twin Gauss Jager, they're not going to take a twin Gauss Catapult; because of this, allowing the K2 to take twin Gauss doesn't actually change anything. On the other hand, restricting Gauss would significantly change single Gauss builds - the Jager may not be able to carry PPCs, for example, so restricting the K2 from carrying Gauss would basically be saying "Pick PPC or Gauss - if you want PPCs, pick the K2, and if you want Gauss, pick the JM6-S".

If you really want to get rid of the "twin gauss 65t mech" thing, your only real option is to remove twin Gauss as an option for both the Jagermech and the Catapult. That'd be kind of an uphill argument for most people around here, but if you're the sort of person that feels that at least one Jagermech should have access to a twin Gauss build, then it the K2 should also get access to it - the K2 is worse at it than the Jagermech, so why not?

Ultimatum X, on 10 October 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

What's really sad is all of the gnashing of teeth over the K2 mounting Dual Gauss, when even with that build available it is at best a T3 mech.

On top of that it is one of the few IS Heavy mechs that can even mount Dual Gauss - which is a uniqueness in and of itself, as well as an advantage over clan Heavies that struggle with the build as they can't lower their engines or remove heatsinks to make it very viable.

It's an example used as a point of discussion. This example will be used to flesh out the overall strategy. We could've used Blackjacks or Atlases as discussion points instead; we chose to use Jagermechs and Catapults.

If you wish to discuss how "good" or "bad" specific builds are currently, there's an entire forum devoted to that, and a feedback post discussing mech tiers.

Edited by Xarian, 10 October 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

WM Quicksilver, on 10 October 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I'm just gonna hit on this because I don't have time to play quote-athon on the false assumptions you make and the major reason for those false assumptions.

It is an arbitrary system, but that doesn't mean it is a bad system neccessarily. It means the sized hardpoint system is not mechanical, translation from TT to MWO requires thought on how it could/will fit within MWO (requires more faith in the devs though). You have to treat the game as a puzzle and ask yourself these sort of questions: What is the role this mech is meant to fill? What kinda hardpoints does it have to have for stock? What mechs have comparable roles and/or hardpoints? Is there overlap? Does one have unique equipment to separate it from the other (ECM, JJs, AMS, etc)? Could it mount a viable and unique loadout?

The WHOLE point of sized hardpoints isn't just to limit the superpowered builds, you are missing the true goal of sized hardpoints (the limitation of superpowered builds is just a great side-effect). Your are leveling the playing field for all mechs, making sure that all mechs fit within the scope of the game and meta. You are giving the devs more control over what loadouts are actually able to be used.

I'm seeing a lot of people use the fact they "don't like it" or one post I saw was they avoided MW4 because of size hardpoints as an argument, which I feel the need to remind people feeling alone is not a good argument.
I'm seeing people complain that it won't fix the problem builds, and to a degree you are right, the laser vomit TImby won't be fixed, but you are also forgetting this would replace ghost heat and we could also see PPCs be unnerfed to actually compete with lasers again. Not to mention look at why energy weapons are doing better than ballistic currently. If it can reduce the versatility of the more powerful mechs though, and still maintain the versatility of the weaker mechs, how is that bad exactly? Not everyone is advocating for sized hardpoints strictly based on stock loadouts, and I don't advise is because I like my Cicada's semi-useful.
I'm also seeing people use the argument that it won't fix all the problems. Well it shouldn't, it isn't meant to be a catchall system, you'd be hard pressed to find anything with such a requirement. It is meant to compliment other fixes such as improved weapon balancing, maybe an improved heat scale, or even quirks.

I probably missed a couple, hopefully Ill get more time to address arguments soon...

Define super powered loadout. There are few mechs that you'll do hardpoint sizing on all mechs and not realize you've made other mechs extremely strong (if you are also removing ghost heat), comparatively, until its way too late.

[DocBach]

Xarian, on 10 October 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Your only options here, if you really want to get rid of the "twin gauss 65t mech" thing, is to remove twin Gauss as an option for both the Jagermech and the Catapult. I'm not particularly against that, but if you're the sort of person that feels that at least one Jagermech should have access to a twin Gauss build, then it the K2 should also get access to it - because the K2 is worse at it than the Jagermech, so why not?

I believe the intent of hardpoint restriction is specifically to encourage some kind of diversity and uniqueness into different 'Mech variants, in a follow up post I explained that currently the Jagermech can be a gauss Jagermech on any of its builds as the generic hard points in the arms of all its configurations supports it, which sort of makes which variant you use an arbitrary decision.

A hardpoint restriction as a means to remove other mitigating mechanics like ghost heat or Gauss charge up would likely not work, for the fact that the universe has plenty of 'Mechs that would be considered to abuse the "meta" like the Devastator would be far superior to other 'Mechs as it was somewhat balanced in the board game by the fact that its fifty points of damage was spread over locations rather than directed into a single hole like it would be in MWO.

I don't even consider the dual gauss IS heavies to be a problem build with the fact that a Direwolf can carry three Gauss rifles and 2 PPC's if it wants (not sure if it could with hard point restrictions, I don't really own Clan 'Mechs and haven't looked into what it could carry -- I think the A variant arm would be the only hardpoint large enough to Gauss), but I do think the game would play a little more interesting if players had to make critical rather than arbitrary decisions on builds rather than just cookie cutting what is proved to be the best into 'Mechs with what have proved to have the best hard points.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 12:28 PM.

[Shredhead]

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

For the 100th time...this is NOT what "sized hardpoints" means. It means restricting mechs from taking larger weapons than we as a community want them to take.

Luckily you are not the community. And you will never get the majority of the community to agree to this bullshit.

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

I would say yes - a vote on mechs that are being complained about either because they are "too good" or "too bad". PGI creates a poll (i.e. how many PPCs should DWF be able to carry: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and we vote.

How about no? The majority of players don't even know how to use the mechlab, or tactics! If those terribads start to destroy this game out of ignorance, I'm out!

[DocBach]

Shredhead, on 10 October 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Luckily you are not the community. And you will never get the majority of the community to agree to this bullshit.


How about no? The majority of players don't even know how to use the mechlab, or tactics! If those terribads start to destroy this game out of ignorance, I'm out!

Concur -- the majority of the community who wanted more balance revisions left this game two years ago when the competitive e-sport crowd drowned them out. The majority of the current community are very happy with the status quo, and don't want to see any changes of the game that would change how they've determined it should play (only big direct fire weapons as a show case of SKILL).

That obviously paid way more dividends to PGI since the five or so remaining RHOD teams paid way more money than the thousands of players the game hemorrhaged away by changes made to keep the competitive scene happy would have, like keeping the gauss/PPC jumpsnipe meta for a year.

[occusoj]

Quote

a vote on mechs that are being complained about either because they are "too good" or "too bad". PGI creates a poll (i.e. how many PPCs should DWF be able to carry: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and we vote.

All mechs that kill people will get complained about. So there are votes to be held about half the mechs and at least all big lasers, PPCs, LRMs, SRMs and Gauss. Whole lot of stuff.
In addition to that, I think that its a very bad idea that people who never even played a build/variant can vote on the changes made to it. A specific build might seem OP to average players not having experience with them but with some builds its really hard work and far from easy-mode to rack up dmg/kills.

Theres little really problematic builds out there, hardpoint sizing is a huge lot of work to deal with them. Work with heavy casualities in the just-for-fun-build area.
For example, I couldnt run the dual LBX K2. Not really OP but sometimes its quite well entertaining to play with a mech sized double shotgun.

Edited by occusoj, 10 October 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[1453 R]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Concur -- the majority of the community who wanted more balance revisions left this game two years ago when the competitive e-sport crowd drowned them out. The majority of the current community are very happy with the status quo, and don't want to see any changes of the game that would change how they've determined it should play (only big direct fire weapons as a show case of SKILL).

That obviously paid way more dividends to PGI since the five or so remaining RHOD teams paid way more money than the thousands of players the game hemorrhaged away by changes made to keep the competitive scene happy would have, like keeping the gauss/PPC jumpsnipe meta for a year.

*Sigh*

And eliminating any reason whatsoever to play anything but five or six top-end chassis who are naturally able to equip the armaments that win games on 'Mechs that aren't larger than carrier groups is the way to keep thousands of casuals in the game?

Again, I say unto you this: DRG-1C. Make me a workable loadout on this 'Mech without increasing the number of critical slots its armament uses, Doc. One one-slot ballistic hardpoint, two one-slot energy hardpoints, and one two-slot missile hardpoint. That's what you get to work with - now, make it work. I'm not asking for an ultracomp face-wrecker, or even something you'd play in a weekend pointathon. All I'm asking for is something I could take into a regular Puglandia match and not A.) completely embarrass myself, or B.) be a complete waste of time and space and a detriment to my team with.

Can you do it? Because I sure as shootin' can't, and I see no reason to render the DRG-1C, as well as the vast majority of all other 'Mechs in this game, into unplayable poop in a misguided and erroneous attempt to eliminate front-loaded damage from the game and inject some character into the machines in question.

The character is coming. The IS quirk pass, from all the hints we've gotten, seems to be doing eighty percent of the job a sized hardpoint system would do, and without breaking essentially every 'Mech in every Mechlab in every player's account in MWO. You can't tell every single player in your game that every single 'Mech they've ever made is now invalid and bad and that they're bad people for ever having made it, not if you want your game to survive for another week. I mean, come on! Look at the outrageous hullaballoo people threw over game mode soft voting, and that change is a thousand times less destructive and heavy-handed than this bullscheissen would be!

Do you honestly think for an instant, people, that MWO would survive the complete and utter ruination of every single 'Mech every player in the game owns?

[DocBach]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

*Sigh*



Again, I say unto you this: DRG-1C. Make me a workable loadout on this 'Mech without increasing the number of critical slots its armament uses, Doc. One one-slot ballistic hardpoint, two one-slot energy hardpoints, and one two-slot missile hardpoint. That's what you get to work with - now, make it work. I'm not asking for an ultracomp face-wrecker, or even something you'd play in a weekend pointathon. All I'm asking for is something I could take into a regular Puglandia match and not A.) completely embarrass myself, or B.) be a complete waste of time and space and a detriment to my team with.

Can you do it? Because I sure as shootin' can't, and I see no reason to render the DRG-1C, as well as the vast majority of all other 'Mechs in this game, into unplayable poop in a misguided and erroneous attempt to eliminate front-loaded damage from the game and inject some character into the machines in question.

First off, in an environment in which the ability to use what most players consider to be streamlined and totally efficient weapon systems is removed, builds that we currently consider less than optimal wouldn't be as hindered as they are currently -- they would be the norm.

Second, with a 1+1 hardpoint replacement with size restrictions, I would probably do an AC/2 with two ER large lasers and keep the LRM-10.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...812809c5f6a607c

Fast long range sniper type skirmisher. The fact that it actually has two hardpoints per location it has energy weapons, means it could carry large lasers, and that separates it from the fact that the other Dragon configurations can use larger autocannons. And since this in this hypothetical world we're discussing other 'Mechs also have smaller sized autocannons or laser batteries or ability to boat massive clouds of LRM's than what we currently have, the two large lasers backed by an LRM-10 and the DPS of an AC/2 would be a pretty good weapons combination.

Or maybe, something like this;

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...40cafbef6792b24

It swaps out the ER large lasers and uses closer in weapons to fight closer in with -- the AC/2 gives it DPS at long range (again comparable to other 'Mechs in our imaginary world where not everyone can boat massive batteries of the same weapon), while the closer in lasers lets it put out more DPS at closer ranges and stay cooler than the ER large laser sniper build.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1378a33fab6b58d

Maybe I don't want to run an XL -- this one is still quick for a heavy 'Mech, and carries a similar loadout to the other brawler build, but now doesn't die when I lose a side torso.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...8d33fffc7bb43f0

This one runs a similar build to the first, only it keeps the stock engine to get rid of the penalty of the side torso death at the cost of the LRM rack.

Still, the strict sized hard points is your own requirement and I still stand by the fact that balance passes for individual chassis would be needed in many cases.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[IceSerpent]

occusoj, on 10 October 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

All mechs that kill people will get complained about. So there are votes to be held about half the mechs and at least all big lasers, PPCs, LRMs, SRMs and Gauss. Whole lot of stuff.

No, not like that. People complain about a whole lot of stuff, PGI has statistics regarding what is being complained about the most. So, PGI decides what is worthy of a vote and the vote itself indicates whether majority agrees with the complaint or not.
The only alternative I can see is to have PGI do the changes as they see fit, without any vote...but Paul's approach to balancing is very unorthodox, to put it mildly.

[EgoSlayer]

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

I would say yes - a vote on mechs that are being complained about either because they are "too good" or "too bad". PGI creates a poll (i.e. how many PPCs should DWF be able to carry: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and we vote.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you serious?

Have you looked at the results of any of the current polls (Two for game mode choice, Next IS Medium/Heavy) or the feed back threads about things like 'Player Council', CW, or Sized Hard points?

LOL. And you seriously think the community can *decide with an overwhelming majority* what the correct hard point restrictions would be?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Design by committee will never work. Even if the choice was down to two options, you're going to have two very polarizing opinions on something like this, and either choice is going to alienate one of the the groups. And they are going to be very vocal about their displeasure..

But thanks, that's probably the best laugh I've had all week!

Edited by EgoSlayer, 10 October 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[1453 R]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

First off, in an environment in which the ability to use what most players consider to be streamlined and totally efficient weapon systems is removed, builds that we currently consider less than optimal wouldn't be as hindered as they are currently -- they would be the norm.

Second, with a 1+1 hardpoint replacement with size restrictions, I would probably do an AC/2 with two ER large lasers and keep the LRM-10.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...812809c5f6a607c

Fast long range sniper type skirmisher. The fact that it actually has two hardpoints per location it has energy weapons, means it could carry large lasers, and that separates it from the fact that the other Dragon configurations can use larger autocannons. And since this in this hypothetical world we're discussing other 'Mechs also have smaller sized autocannons or laser batteries or ability to boat massive clouds of LRM's than what we currently have, the two large lasers backed by an LRM-10 and the DPS of an AC/2 would be a pretty good weapons combination.

Or maybe, something like this;

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...40cafbef6792b24

It swaps out the ER large lasers and uses closer in weapons to fight closer in with -- the AC/2 gives it DPS at long range (again comparable to other 'Mechs in our imaginary world where not everyone can boat massive batteries of the same weapon), while the closer in lasers lets it put out more DPS at closer ranges and stay cooler than the ER large laser sniper build.

Still, the strict sized hard points is your own requirement and I still stand by the fact that balance passes for individual chassis would be needed in many cases.

Are you certain the large-class lasers are permissible?

According to the recent flurry of sized hardpoint proposals, the DRG-1C would probably lose the additional energy hardpoint in both LT and LA and be restricted to 1x 1-slot energy hardpoint, as is dictated by its stock armament. Enable the DRG-1C to carry extra slots' worth of weapons over and above its stock armament's five slots of gun, and then we have the sticky issue of why can't the K2 have two-slot energy hardpoints in its torso? Why can't the JagerMech have just enough extra slots in its dual-ballistic, gun-heavy arms to keep its twin Gauss builds? Why can't the Huginn, which most would sensibly agree is one of the worst 'Mechs in the game, get an extra slot's worth of hardpoint space in its left torso so it can do its usual twin SRM-6 build?

We end up asking, once again, why this entire sordid business is necessary. If you're not going to demand that every 'Mech in the game stick with its stock armament sizes, then all you've done is destroy the vast, seething majority of every build of every player in MWO for what amounts to no reason whatsoever beyond "Because we said so".

It's the same as with all the people who want Piranha to strip out only certain hardwired components on OmniMechs. They're all totez legit willingz to leave hardlocked Endo, Ferro, engine DHS, and engines alone, they totez are! But wouldn't the game be much better, much more fun, if only Piranha would just, y'know...let the Summoner remove all its jump jets, or let the Mist Lynx lose its active probe, or give the Adder back just that one extra energy hardpoint by unlocking the flamer?

Either the rules are the rules are the g'damned muhfuggin' rules, or the entire system comes apart as people shriek and pitch conniptions in endless attempts to get their personal pet baby added to the list of exemptions. And that's not an environment I want to play in, or be anywhere near.

[Shredhead]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Concur -- the majority of the community who wanted more balance revisions left this game two years ago when the competitive e-sport crowd drowned them out. The majority of the current community are very happy with the status quo, and don't want to see any changes of the game that would change how they've determined it should play (only big direct fire weapons as a show case of SKILL).

That obviously paid way more dividends to PGI since the five or so remaining RHOD teams paid way more money than the thousands of players the game hemorrhaged away by changes made to keep the competitive scene happy would have, like keeping the gauss/PPC jumpsnipe meta for a year.

You what mate?
People left the game in waves, triggered mostly by certain events, frustration and boredom. There was never a majority for restricting hardpoints size, neither before nor after CB!
And you won't get that majority now. Deal with it.

[IceSerpent]

EgoSlayer, on 10 October 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

LOL. And you seriously think the community can *decide with an overwhelming majority* what the correct hard point restrictions would be?

If community can't decide with overwhelming majority that DWF shouldn't carry 9 PPCs, then it stands to reason that it's not a problematic build, right?

Quote

Design by committee will never work. Even if the choice was down to two options, you're going to have two very polarizing opinions on something like this, and either choice is going to alienate one of the the groups. And they are going to be very vocal about their displeasure..

There are exactly two options regarding design decisions - to have one designer in charge (PGI in this case), or "design by committee". Pick your poison.

[ApolloKaras]

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

If community can't decide with overwhelming majority that DWF shouldn't carry 9 PPCs, then it stands to reason that it's not a problematic build, right?

Its not problematic. This thing is good for 2 shots. Credit to team, besides its strictly a troll build. Easy way to solve that is when he fires 9 ppcs that he just ends up as a crater on the ground.

[IceSerpent]

Saxie, on 10 October 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

Its not problematic. This thing is good for 2 shots. Credit to team, besides its strictly a troll build. Easy way to solve that is when he fires 9 ppcs that he just ends up as a crater on the ground.

I used it as an example. Feel free to replace it with any other build that is currently limited by GH. Bottom line is that if community is split 50/50 on whther that build should be removed or not, it probably shouldn't be touched. On the other hand, if we get an overwhelming majority voting to get rid of it, then it probably should be removed.