Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:
I made this thread as I've already argued this fight again and again and again. I figured it'd be easier to just make one blanket thread this time around rather than trying to put out all the annoying little brushfires.
Saying that sized hardpoints does anything but remove 90-95% of the mechs from the game as viable choices is delusional. Right now, I can salvage bad mechs by putting good loadouts on them. I can tweak, pluck, pick, and modify the bottom of the barrel mechs until they suit my playstyle and I figure out something that I like with them.
For example, my
DRG-1C? It could never exist if it's stock loadout dictated it's hardpoints. I'm not really sure what -could- exist on a 1C, given it's incredibly limited hardpoints already.
Well, you say, they could just give the 1C bigger, better hardpoints!
Well then, what's the bloody point and/or difference with what we have now?
Another example, my
BLR-1D. One of my favorite assaults, cruelly murdered by a completely pointless hardpoint restriction. Is the Battlemaster so overpowered that it needs to be reigned in in such a way?
What about mechs like the Shadow Hawk, famed for it's versatility and usefulness? If you restrict those hardpoints to anywhere near stock values, that entire mech just drops off the map. Useless 1 slot hardpoints, none of them big enough to do anything interesting with, and not enough of them to boat any serious weaponry.
It's a completely meaningless and useless addition to the system that solves no problems and decimates three quarters of our mech roster out of usability.
I'm completely lost as to how it will improve the game in any way.
Using "stock" as the guide for what hardpoint is suited for what weapons should be extremely flexable.The main objective is to prevent monstrosities like 4+ PPC stalkers,Gauss + 3x PPC highlanders,and other exploitive builds that take advantage of the limited armor mechanics in MWo.
Would a Dragon 1C with it's one ballistic hardpoint that could hold a gauss rifle instead of it's AC2 break the game? nope it wouldn't.
If I was charged with designing a Dragon C1 hardpoint limits with the assumtion that the hardpoint system in use was limited by slots and not some small medium and large B.S. it would look like...
Right arm: 1 Ballistic hardpoint 9 crit slots open (all available in that arm)
Left Arm: 1 Energy hardpoint 2 crit slots max
1 Energy Hardpoint 1 crit slot max
Left torso: 1 energy hardpoint 3 crit slots max
1 energy hardpoint 2 crit slots max
Right torso: 1 AMS
C Torso: 1 missile hardpoint 2 crits max (all available slots in that location)
This dragon will be fully capable of using your build but,will not be capable of fitting a gauss rifle and 3+ PPCs that would be the problem that this system would address.
As for shadowhawks? same deal at least one hardpoint would be set with a high crit space value to accomidate ONE huge cannon but,you should not have energy hardpoints that also allow for several PPCs (just one
)
But what about mechs that have stock configurations with huge pinpoint alpha potentials?
This is a frequently used counter argument for hardpoint restrictions and is frequently laboring under the assumption that a single game mechanic should be left to function in a bubble.
Well that's just bad game design!
So how do we fix mechs like the soon to arrive kingcrab with it's twin AC20 stock loadout? or what if we ever see Annihilators with 4 AC10s? What about the...
CHASSIS QUIRKS!
Maybe that Kingcrab is limited to 300 engines,Maybe it don't turn so quick,maybe it accelerates and decellerates like a rollerskate full of concrete.
But,honestly the time to have instituted any sort of hardpoint limitation was way back in closed beta the first time someone jammed twin gauss rifles into machinegun ports.
That ship has sailed unfortunatley.
Edited by Lykaon, 10 October 2014 - 01:02 AM.