336 replies to this topic

[occusoj]

Quote

PGI has statistics regarding what is being complained about the most.

Do they really keep track of every rant/rage/QQ thread there is?
Hats off to them if thats the case.

Nevertheless, the ammount of complaints isnt that a good of an indication of where to hit with the nurfbat.
Look at the waves of whine on current LRMs for example.

Quote

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?

The community most likely wont agree overhelmingly on anything.

Edited by occusoj, 10 October 2014 - 01:59 PM.

[DocBach]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

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.

Going by this suggestion here:
http://mwomercs.com/...point-revision/

Which doesn't add any arbitrary new weapon class tiers or whatever, and just mixes the hardpoints PGI already gives us with sizes based on whatever gives you more space, you'd be able to use the large class lasers, and all my suggested DRG-1C variants would be completely legitimate.

I have no problem adapting to any rule set in this game. If the K2 or the Jagermech can't have Gauss rifles, I don't care, again, in our new hypothetical game where 'Mechs can't carry the same kind of loadouts we currently deem effective, weapons load outs closer to what the 'mech comes with is nowhere near as penalized as they currently are.

If we want to keep using the dual Gauss as an example, like I said, perhaps a single variant could have the ability to carry dual gauss, sure.... but the other Jagermech variants might be able to do something different like boat more lighter AC's or machine guns, or whatever -- the K2 as an example would be unique for its ability to carry more than one PPC, in a high mount, rather than use two Gauss rifles as it currently is known for.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[Victor Morson]

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.

Nice of you to speak for everyone, given that a huge number of people DO want that.

You don't speak for a lot of people, man.

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

This argument got put to bed in closed beta. It solves nothing and takes away from the creativity we can apply to our loadouts.

If done right, it allows for a lot of creativity but for different 'mechs to have different roles. Otherwise they are all just 'mech skins.

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

Don't throw out all of your balancing changes to adopt the absolute worst feature of MW4. You have a much more elegant solution in mind with the Quirks, and you seem to be getting closer and closer to achieving solid balance.

You mean the best feature of MW4?

Hardpoints and hardpoint limits are a massively positive thing and frankly, should have been added to TableTop rules already.

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

Please, ignore the rash of threads insisting that sized hardpoints would somehow improve this game or deal with problematic builds. I want to chew my own beard off every time I see one, and the implementation of such a system will assuredly make me take my fat whale dollars elsewhere.

Instead, please, ignore Josef Nader.

[DocBach]

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Hardpoints and hardpoint limits are a massively positive thing and frankly, should have been added to TableTop rules already.

They actually are, if you look into the customization rules from the Strategic Operations rule set.

[Johnny Z]

I agree with all the players. We should have hard point sizes some time after faction wars are in. WHo knew it would hard point sizes all the players would agree on.

Edited by Johnny Z, 10 October 2014 - 02:08 PM.

[3rdworld]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Going by this suggestion here:
http://mwomercs.com/...point-revision/

Which doesn't add any arbitrary new weapon class tiers or whatever, and just mixes the hardpoints PGI already gives us with sizes based on whatever gives you more space, you'd be able to use the large class lasers, and all my suggested DRG-1C variants would be completely legitimate.

Really? Did you read the thread? Look at the missile hardpoints, in pretty much every mech "would need to expand hardpoints to make viable". Totally not arbitrary at all. Lights with 3 energy can carry a PPC but most assaults can't....cool.

Those restrictions may as well be called ++stock.

[IceSerpent]

occusoj, on 10 October 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Do they really keep track of every rant/rage/QQ thread there is?
Hats off to them if thats the case.

They have a general feel about rants on the forums just like we do, but they also (should) have statistics on complaints submitted to support, which we don't have. Not to mention that PGi has people monitoring the forums (mods, etc.) as a day job, so their "feel" about forum rants is probably more accurate than ours.

Quote

Nevertheless, the ammount of complaints isnt that a good of an indication of where to hit with the nurfbat.
Look at the waves of whine on current LRMs for example.

Agreed. That's why there should be a vote to make sure.

Quote

The community most likely wont agree overhelmingly on anything.

If we don't, then it doesn't need a nerf/buff. That being said, we did agree overwhelmingly on things like 3PV being bad (not that it did us any good), so there's hope that we'll do so again if issue is serious enough.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 10 October 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

Really? Did you read the thread? Look at the missile hardpoints, in pretty much every mech "would need to expand hardpoints to make viable". Totally not arbitrary at all. Lights with 3 energy can carry a PPC but most assaults can't....cool.

Those restrictions may as well be called ++stock.

Looking at the light 'mechs, it looks like very few (the JR7-F and one of the Locusts look to be one of the only ones) to be able to use any PPC's. Looking at the Smurfy and applying the proposed system, the Awesome, Victor, Battlemaster, Highlander and Banshee would all be able to carry PPC's, or even multiples of. That leaves the Stalker and Atlas as the two assault 'mechs incapable of carrying PPC's (well, at least not hero variant as the Boar's Head could).

Would there have been as much complaint of massed PPC FLD during their reign if the only 'Mech capable of doing so was 'Mechs considered sub par like the Awesome?

For missile 'Mechs, if you mean viable by carrying huge 70 missile boats like currently, like the ones we see complaints about on the forums daily, then sure. If you mean that most 'Mechs with the exception of fire support 'Mechs would have to use missile hardpoints for supplementary missile racks as secondary weapon systems like you'd see in the actual Battletech universe, and 'Mechs traditionally used as support 'Mechs would be better at being dedicated support 'mechs than any 'Mech with good hit boxes and generic missile slots like currently, then you are correct.

I also hate the idea of currently unplayed 'Mechs like the Trebuchet having any sort of role in this game when any other 'mech with generic missile points can do the job better with better hit boxes, too. I would hate there to be any sort of actual specialization required between chassis, it would be much more uninteresting than choosing my meta 'mech that can do anything that I want.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 02:34 PM.

[1453 R]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

I also hate the idea of currently unplayed 'Mechs like the Trebuchet having any sort of role in this game when any other 'mech with generic missile points can do the job better with better hit boxes, too. I would hate there to be any sort of actual specialization required between chassis, it would be much more uninteresting than choosing my meta 'mech that can do anything that I want.

Can I ask an honest question, Doc? You're a name I respect around here, and watching you come down hard on the people who want to keep the MechLab in the game is honestly distressing.

Is there any particular problem with using the quirks system to help emphasize different roles for different 'Mechs, rather than Giganerf Hammersmashing the entire line-up and essentially removing 'Mech customization from the game? Like I've said several times now, there's no reason on Earth why the Treb can't get some gnarly cool quirks that make it a much better choice for mobile medium-weight missile support than 'Mechs that don't have those quirks, but without removing the option of turning, say, a Griffin or a Shadow Hawk into a Lurmisher as well, if the player so chooses. The Trebuchet is better at using the weapons, while things like the Griff or Shawk have sturdier hitboxes. Is that not an acceptable sort of trade, rather than hard-locking the entire roster of 'Mechs into their stock armaments?

[Victor Morson]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Can I ask an honest question, Doc? You're a name I respect around here, and watching you come down hard on the people who want to keep the MechLab in the game is honestly distressing.

I think the divide is really coming down to those of us who saw tiered hardpoints in action (NBT veterans) and those who did not (MW3 veterans, MW:O newcomers).

That's the clear line.

We've seen it work. We KNOW it works. It has a very positive impact on the game and actually EXPANDS room for customization because you can't just transfer the current fad to any ol' mech, and rather, must design around that 'mechs strengths/weaknesses.

Again, I had a lot MORE variants in a game with tiered hardpoints per chassis than I EVER have had in MW:O. This adds strategy, including mechlab strategy, not takes it away.

I am a huge supporter of customization and am opposed vastly to hidden systems that punish that customization. This is an in the open system designed to make each mech have unique purposes and play styles while leaving a LOT of flexability still in there.

ED: I understand why people who dismissed MW4 due to it's lackluster single player / public deathmatches think this system sounds like a bad idea, but again, experience has shown it's a great success at adding a considerable amount of depth to the game. I stand by history, but do get why it's a hard sell with some people.

This should have been in here since day 0.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 October 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[DocBach]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Can I ask an honest question, Doc? You're a name I respect around here, and watching you come down hard on the people who want to keep the MechLab in the game is honestly distressing.

Is there any particular problem with using the quirks system to help emphasize different roles for different 'Mechs, rather than Giganerf Hammersmashing the entire line-up and essentially removing 'Mech customization from the game? Like I've said several times now, there's no reason on Earth why the Treb can't get some gnarly cool quirks that make it a much better choice for mobile medium-weight missile support than 'Mechs that don't have those quirks, but without removing the option of turning, say, a Griffin or a Shadow Hawk into a Lurmisher as well, if the player so chooses. The Trebuchet is better at using the weapons, while things like the Griff or Shawk have sturdier hitboxes. Is that not an acceptable sort of trade, rather than hard-locking the entire roster of 'Mechs into their stock armaments?

I've said it before -- I don't have a stake in the current system or any hardpoint revisions. Either way, I can survive and continue to play the game.

I'm not coming down on his position as much as I'm coming down on pointing out several instances where he makes incorrect fallacies to support his bias.

In return, I'm giving him my own fallacy; if he is against 'Mechs having unique hard points, it must be because he likes the status quo where we could cut out 4/5th's of the game's mechs and still be able to make all the builds we currently have.

I'll still play the game if we don't get any balance passes, or if we get one that is so revolutionary whole game mechanics are recreated from the ground up -- however the subject of this thread at hand is hardpoint restrictions and I am playing devil's advocate in hopes to provide conversation about the subject beyond simply yes or no.

To counter against restrictions, I could add additional points I don't think I've seen even mentioned on the anti-side. Besides the obvious of making most players completely recreate their garage (myself included, with dozens of 'mechs that would need to be refitted), if there was any restrictions in community warfare where certain chassis were available specifically to certain factions, some factions would have availability of certain roles completely restricted from them.

Of course, a counter point to that is we don't know if there are going to be any restrictions to chassis beyond Clan or Inner Sphere, and most Houses have their own 'Mechs for each role, which would be incentive for PGI to put more chassis in the game for the different factions, even if on paper they seem redundant in hardpoints ie, the Steiners and Davions don't have Trebuchets or Catapults, but they can bring a Dervish to boat missiles.

As for the subject of quirks fixing everything; even if there was restricted hard points, I would still love to see individualized quirks added to 'Mechs, specifically abilities that would mimic special abilities described in the fluff from the Technical Readouts -- something like a 'Mech renown to have better targeting systems get target information a little bit quicker and what not. That said, I'm not sure incentives like a quicker rate of fire or 10% health to an item is going to be enough to make any serious player take a sub-optimal chassis when a Tier One 'Mech without quirks will still be able to face roll them with the most effective combination of weapons and hit boxes.

I'd have to say I'd need to see what they actually are going to do before I make comment on if they'd give each 'Mech enough uniqueness to actually be definitively unique from others with similar hard points.

[Rebas Kradd]

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Again, I had a lot MORE variants in a game with tiered hardpoints per chassis than I EVER have had in MW:O. This adds strategy, including mechlab strategy, not takes it away.

That is because you are a diehard competitive, concerned only with pushing your stable to the maximum possible effectiveness. Which is fine.

But not everyone is like that. Some people just want to tinker and experiment, and are also able to succeed fairly well with builds that others could not, simply because it fits their playstyle. I feel those are valuable niches and should be preserved, and would be taken away by hardpoint restrictions.

[Victor Morson]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

That is because you are a diehard competitive, concerned only with pushing your stable to the maximum possible effectiveness. Which is fine.

... which tiered hardpoints would positively nerf out, right? As a previous competitive pilot I am saying "Please, give 'mechs different roles and purposes and restrict what we can do with them so people can't just drop the current Comp Setup #1 onto every single 'mech that meets the minimum requirements." That is what I am saying. Which also helps casuals because there's less one-config-fits-all out there.

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

But not everyone is like that. Some people just want to tinker and experiment, and are also able to succeed fairly well with builds that others could not, simply because it fits their playstyle. I feel those are valuable niches and should be preserved, and would be taken away by hardpoint restrictions.

And again, that's why I'm rallying so hard for these points. If you own a 'mech and three variants, that should leave a massive amount of tinkering & editing available, around that 'mechs strengths. If you want to tinker with SRMs and Lasers and you buy a Stalker, you could setup dozens of configs on it (including LRMs and such), and .. here is the key part for everything you just said: Not be punished for it.

Without tiered hardpoints anything even remotely split-up for firepower is a frankenmech and terrible. With tiered hardpoints, 'mechs with more diverse weapons are the norm.

The irony is most of the people fighting against tiered hardpoints are doing it for reasons that will end up shooting them in the foot, and continue the trend of them getting wrecked by people that are allowed to continue to copy & paste a config over and over to chassis after chassis.

ED: Just to be clear, again, I love boats. I think boats are a viable thing. I think that some variants should be based around boating (and have other offsetting disadvantages). I think there should be variants of 'mechs for people who love AC/2s, AC/5s, LRMs, SRMs, Pulse Lasers.. you name it. Absolutely. There should be a variant or chassis for every role.

All I'm saying is every chassis should not be able to do every role. That's all.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 October 2014 - 03:21 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

That is because you are a diehard competitive, concerned only with pushing your stable to the maximum possible effectiveness. Which is fine.

But not everyone is like that. Some people just want to tinker and experiment, and are also able to succeed fairly well with builds that others could not, simply because it fits their playstyle. I feel those are valuable niches and should be preserved, and would be taken away by hardpoint restrictions.

You realize that is why we had multiple variants, because we tinkered right?

It wasn't just about loadouts in MW4, it was speed/armor/heat as well. For almost every loadout, you had one with Reactive, one with Reflective, one that went really fast, and one for maps like Solar Desert. Regardless of how you feel about competitive players, they tinkered with everything too or they wouldn't have had so many similar variants just tweaked for the different maps or different types of drop decs. I spent about 50% of my time in mechlab as I did actually playing the game even in the MW4 days.

As Victor pointed out, it is funny how most of those who have supported Sized Hardpoints throughout this thread are NBT Veterans though. IceSerpent, Roland, Victor, and myself all have quite a bit of experience with NBT.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 10 October 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

... which tiered hardpoints would positively nerf out, right? As a previous competitive pilot I am saying "Please, give 'mechs different roles and purposes and restrict what we can do with them so people can't just drop the current Comp Setup #1 onto every single 'mech that meets the minimum requirements." That is what I am saying. Which also helps casuals because there's less one-config-fits-all out there.



And again, that's why I'm rallying so hard for these points. If you own a 'mech and three variants, that should leave a massive amount of tinkering & editing available, around that 'mechs strengths. If you want to tinker with SRMs and Lasers and you buy a Stalker, you could setup dozens of configs on it (including LRMs and such), and .. here is the key part for everything you just said: Not be punished for it.

Without tiered hardpoints anything even remotely split-up for firepower is a frankenmech and terrible. With tiered hardpoints, 'mechs with more diverse weapons are the norm.

The irony is most of the people fighting against tiered hardpoints are doing it for reasons that will end up shooting them in the foot, and continue the trend of them getting wrecked by people that are allowed to continue to copy & paste a config over and over to chassis after chassis.

ED: Just to be clear, again, I love boats. I think boats are a viable thing. I think that some variants should be based around boating (and have other offsetting disadvantages). I think there should be variants of 'mechs for people who love AC/2s, AC/5s, LRMs, SRMs, Pulse Lasers.. you name it. Absolutely. There should be a variant or chassis for every role.

All I'm saying is every chassis should not be able to do every role. That's all.

I love frankenmechs. I absolutely love them. It's why I play the game, and I would find your version of role warfare rather claustrophobic. I do not care that bad builds are bad (well, to a degree) and I actually enjoy trying to get mileage out of nonstandard builds. It's become my signature in this game. That's why I see your system as restrictive. I don't care that my favorite weapon systems can thrive on a Stalker. I still want to put them on a Centurion. I like its speed and mobility and I want to try to make it work.

I see your argument: wide-open customization blurs role warfare and hands domination to the mechs with the best combination of hardpoints/hitboxes/weapon mountings/JJs. I see that and I agree with it. But I'd much rather swallow mediocre balance than lose the LL/UAC5/SSRM6 Centurion I've been playing with for a year. And I like the abstract approach of Ghost Heat + Quirk System because, while inelegant and pigeonholey, it preserves customization. Best of both worlds.

So...we've got a collision of philosophies here. Which one applies to more of the player base? That's the question PGI is faced with.

(Besides, I really don't see a weapon meta right now. Not since PPCs were slowed, which I'd been calling the necessary solution all along.)

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 03:43 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

I see your argument: wide-open customization blurs role warfare and hands domination to the mechs with the best combination of hardpoints/hitboxes/weapon mountings/JJs. I see that and I agree with it. But I'd much rather swallow mediocre balance than lose the LL/UAC5/SSRM6 Centurion I've been playing with for a year. And I like the abstract approach of Ghost Heat + Quirk System because, while inelegant and pigeonholey, it preserves customization. Best of both worlds.

Who said you would lose the LL/UAC5/SSRM6 build? That's not to say that someone won't lose the build they've been playing with for over a year like you with sized hardpoints, but I also think that the sky is falling attitude taken over protecting these builds is a little silly if it can improve the diversity within game to any degree as well as allow for the removal of ghost heat.

[DocBach]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

I see your argument: wide-open customization blurs role warfare and hands domination to the mechs with the best combination of hardpoints/hitboxes/weapon mountings/JJs. I see that and I agree with it. But I'd much rather swallow mediocre balance than lose the LL/UAC5/SSRM6 Centurion I've been playing with for a year. And I like the abstract approach of Ghost Heat + Quirk System because, while inelegant and pigeonholey, it preserves customization. Best of both worlds.

Using a combined system of hardpoints + slot size from this suggestion http://mwomercs.com/...point-revision/, you wouldn't lose your ability to use your Centurion at all.



The Right arm AC/10 could be swapped out for any other ballistic with the exception of an AC/20 (which it can't do currently). The center torso slot is large enough for a large laser, like it currently is, and it has three slots and three criticals for missiles, meaning you could still use three Streak 2's.

[Ultimax]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

If we want to keep using the dual Gauss as an example, like I said, perhaps a single variant could have the ability to carry dual gauss, sure.... but the other Jagermech variants might be able to do something different like boat more lighter AC's or machine guns

What does that add to Jagers that they don't have now where all of them can run lighter ACs or dual gauss, or whatever ballistics they want?

Or do we just marginalize the rest of them so 1 of them can be the best?


Nothing about that sounds better, or appealing.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 October 2014 - 04:03 PM.

[1453 R]

WM Quicksilver, on 10 October 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

As Victor pointed out, it is funny how most of those who have supported Sized Hardpoints throughout this thread are NBT Veterans though. IceSerpent, Roland, Victor, and myself all have quite a bit of experience with NBT.

And the rest of us are chattering idiots with no idea what we're doing or talking about who should just listen to our betters, right?

You know Quick, it might have flown. If, way back in the closed beta days, there had been enough push for it, you probably could've implemented stock-sized hardpoints back then, when the game was still very much in flux. I maintain that it would have rendered nine out of ten chassis completely. F***ing. Useless. with the remaining one in ten lucky enough to have the right perfect-storm combination of hardpoints, hardpoint sizes, and hitboxes being so crushingly, impossibly dominant that we're not talking the difference between a T1 and a T3, we're talking the difference between a T1 and a T17. But you seem to be perfectly okay with that, so all right. We'll ignore for the moment how intensely restrictive and narrow-focused this would render the game.

It might've flown back in closed beta. It's not going to fly now. Not when thousands of players have two-plus years, billions of C-bills, and hundreds of dollars invested in stables of dozens of 'Mechs that you're effectively destroying. Even if Piranha could financially weather the whole "100% sellback!" solution, it wouldn't work. Many players would, with absolute justification, spit in Piranha's collective eye and say "I don't want my money back, I WANT MY GOD DAMN MECH BACK!" Because people who've sunk hours and hours in mastering out the 'Mechs they like, into grinding the bucks for the modules that work with the 'Mechs they like, that have built their styles of play and their unit doctrines around the 'Mechs they like, are not going to accept being told "You can't do any of that anymore. You have to use the stock armaments, because it's better for game balance and because a bunch of crusty old TT hands on the forums told us to."

The scheisstorm such an announcement would create would be infinitely worse than the scheisstorm created by every previous Year of Infamy Piranha announcement combined. If, for some reason, the changes went through, MWO would die inside a month.

You cannot remove ninety-nine out of a hundred builds from the hangars of every single player of MWO and expect them to shrug it off with a "Meh. I can deal. Especially since it wouldn't fix any of the problems Ghost Heat sets out to fix anyways and thus WE'D HAVE TO KEEP GHOST HEAT, TOO.

The net result of forcing stock hardpoint sizes on the game is that the Locust, the Commando, the Spider, the Raven, the Cicada, the Blackjack, the Centurion, the Griffin, the Kintaro, the Shadow Hawk, the Wolverine, the Quickdraw, the Dragon, the Thunderbolt, the Stalker, and the Banshee all become absolutely piss-poor worthless, as do most Hunchbacks, most Trebuchets, most JagerMechs, most Catapults, some Cataphracts, most Orions, some Awesome, some Battlemasters, some Highlanders, and most Atlases.

Does that sound like an acceptable list of "piss-poor worthless" to you?

[Victor Morson]

Ultimatum X, on 10 October 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

What does that add to Jagers that they don't have now where all of them can run lighter ACs or dual gauss, or whatever ballistics they want?

Or do we just marginalize the rest of them so 1 of them can be the best?

I'd say the Jager should be capped at twin AC/10s as it's largest "big punch guns." Which is a lot better than it sounds when you figure that not every 'mech can run an AC/20 anymore, and that twin AC/10s should be a solid bit if firepower for a heavy.

On that note I'm absolutely in favor of redoing gun balance as well, likely before hardpoints are even looked at. That needs to be priority 1.