336 replies to this topic

[DoctorDetroit]

However good this idea may be... there is no way it will get a significant majority approval.

[Josef Nader]

Jun Watarase, on 10 October 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

I never said they would be limited to stock.

In your example what i would do would be to limit the dragon to a light AC (up to AC5) but give that AC massive boosts via quirks.

This would be better than having everyone go "oh dragon? its ****, just use a jagermech instead!".

So, why not just give the Dragon massive boosts via quirks and avoid months of development time needed to add in a sized hard point system, followed by years worth of tuning and balancing needed to work out the kinks?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Woo! Nobody read beyond the first page! Around we go again!

If the stock weapons loadouts doesn't determine hard point sizes, explain to me why it isn't a completely arbitrary system that leaves the devs playing "whack-a-mole" with problem builds rather than actually balancing the weapons.

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...

[Josef Nader]

Again, you're ignoring huge swaths of my argument.

People don't care about 'roles'. If the Hunchback was the only medium mech that could carry an AC20, but it had terrible hitboxes and poor hardpoint layout people just wouldn't use AC20s on medium mechs. Making some mechs super special snowflakes won't make people field those mechs if those mechs are inherently bad, or if the roles they fill aren't good in MWO. If the Awesome is the only mech that can mount multiple PPCs, people just won't field multiple PPCs. It won't give the awesome "character". It'll simply delete it from play for having bad hitboxes and a marginal specialty role.

What about the Dragon? What's the Dragon's role in MWO, looking at it's stock hardpoints? In Tabletop, it was supposed to be a heavyweight melee truck designed to keep up with medium lances and provide fire support/melee oomph. In MWO? It can't melee, and it's stock weapons loadout would be outfought by a particularly subborn Locust. What quirks are they going to do to make the Dragon worth using if you limit it's hardpoint "sizes" by it's base variant? What role does the Dragon, or the Quickdraw, or the Shadow Hawk, or the Griffin, or any of these other mechs that are passably useful (or really good) right now using loadouts that are nowhere near their "stock" designs fill?

This isn't even addressing the biggest bugbear in the room. Pro-Sizers have said multiple times that sized hardpoints won't solve everything, and PGI will have to implement additional systems (systems very similar to what we have or are getting right now) in order to make it work. So, answer the multi-million dollar development question:

What -exactly- would sized hardpoints do to justify the several months and millions of dollars PGI would have to dump into creating it, balancing it, reworking every single existing mech in the game to use the new system?

[1453 R]

A’ight. Time to have some fun.

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

It is an arbitrary system, but that doesn't mean it is a bad system neccessarily.

No, the fact that it’s a bad system means it’s a bad system.

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

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?

What on earth makes you think that each and every one of those questions isn’t already being asked?

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

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.

It’s not the devs’ job to control what loadouts players are able to use, outside of discouraging/disallowing actual “abusive” builds (with “abusive” meaning overly polarizing and unfun to contend against for a marked majority of players, not “this offends my TT sensibilities!”). It is the devs’ job to allow the players to control what loadouts they wish to take into a match, within the confines of overall game balance requirements, such that the player can use what they like. Restricting player choice should only ever be done with trepidation and the best of reasons, as telling players “NO you can’t do this because we’ve arbitrarily decided that anyone who does this is a big fat jerkface meaniepoop” is a fantasic way to lose business.

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

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.

The hell feeling along isn’t a good argument. If a player doesn’t like the feel of a system, doesn’t think it feels good/right, then he’s not going to have fun. If he’s not going to have fun, he’s not going to stay. If he doesn’t stay, and he’s not alone…well, game collapses.

Feeling is absolutely a viable reason to like or dislike something

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

I'm seeing people complain that it won't fix the problem builds, and to a degree you are right,

Then why kill off ninety-nine out of a hundred perfectly fun, viable, not-broken players are already using and enjoying just to fail at solving the problem you set out to solve?!

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

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.

Sized hardpoints wouldn’t do squat to allow for the removal of Ghost Heat. Remove Ghost Heat without some other measure or control on alpha strikes and all you do is allow TT-canonical alpha monsters like the Warhawk or Nova Primes, or the Devastator or Pillager, to rule the roost with an utterly unshakable fist of steel.

No, all you’d do would be to kill off ninety-nine out of a hundred perfectly legitimate no-problems-here builds to satisfy your own sensibilities and the notion that the JagerMech has to stink because it stunk in TT.

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

Not to mention look at why energy weapons are doing better than ballistic currently.

Because Clan lasers actually have the range and damage values to be a legitimate threat to enemy ‘Mechs, unlike the ballistics-dominated IS game wherein Spheroid energy boats were, and are, laughable. The reverse is true of the Clans, offering laser-centric players like myself a chance to actually have fun again. It’s hardly an issue of hardpoints, especially since Clan energy can be utilized almost entirely in single-slot hardpoints anyways.

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

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.

So only garbage ‘Mechs get to pick what they want to run? “Versatility” is a trait only applicable to ‘Mechs hardly anyone uses? And you claim this isn’t an arbitrary measure set in place to punish evil bad nasty players who dared to play within the general region of the EVIL META(!!) in an attempt to win more matches than they lost?

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

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.

“This won’t fix anything and we’d still need all the other balancing measures Piranha’s already working on, but we should totally do it anyways because I hate the fact that the JagerMech is good at using ballistics even though it’s one of the most ballistics-centric ‘Mechs in TT!”

Sure thing, brah. You go ahead and do that.

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

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

I wouldn’t. I heartily recommend quitting while you’re behind, Quick.

Anyways. Now for this little gem.

Jun Watarase, on 10 October 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

I never said they would be limited to stock.

In your example what i would do would be to limit the dragon to a light AC (up to AC5) but give that AC massive boosts via quirks.

This would be better than having everyone go "oh dragon? its ****, just use a jagermech instead!".

A’ight, here’s another idea instead.

Why not give the Dragon those massive buffquirks for light autocannons, and then not restrict its ballistics to nothing but popguns? That way players who want to use the Dragon in its traditional role of junky pest can do that, and may even be able to get something mildly done with those light popguns, but players who want to run a Gauss rifle instead because they prefer the Gaussdragon playstyle can still do that. They just don’t gain any benefit from the light autocannon perks.

The Dragon’s traditional/stock loadout is still emphasized and enhanced, and you’re not b****slapping players who’ve been using Gaussdragon loadouts for years now across the face and calling them all kinds of filthy names for daring to pollute the Dragon chassis with weapons they like instead of using the stock armament.

Best of both worlds!

[Roland]

Quote

It’s not the devs’ job to control what loadouts players are able to use

Uh... yes it is.

That's pretty much a fundamental element of gameplay.

Here... I'm gonna explain something here. Most people are gonna be too slow to really understand the argument, but whatever.

We can illustrate the utility in mech construction restrictions by looking at extreme cases, and analyzing how those cases impact resulting mech diversity.

Let's take the case where there are effectively ZERO restrictions. That is, you can take any chassis and load up any weapons and equipemtn onto it.

Will this result in more mech diversity? No, absolutely not. It will in fact do exactly the opposite, as there will then be effectively ONE build which will be superior to everything else. It'll basically become an exercise in finding the best weapon, and then loading it onto the mech with the best geometry. Indeed, this is actually what we saw in mechwarrior titles prior to MW4, where all the mechs were gunbags. You would just take a mech, load on some JJ's to get explotive speed capabilities, and then load on as many medium lasers as could fit. This was generally the ONLY build that worked.

What hardpoint restrictions give you, is the ability to limit different mechs to certain roles. It becomes less of an issue of simply loading on all of the best weapon. The individual weapon strength still plays a major role, but gives you the ability to potentially give mechs which are otherwise sub-standard (perhaps due to things like geometry, like the Awesome) the ability to carry loadouts that other mechs cannot. For instance, with sized hardpoints you could potentially have extremely few mechs actually capable of carrying 3 PPC's... rather than any mech with 3 energy hardpoints, like we have today.

In such a world, the awesome starts to become more viable. It's geometry is still bad, but it can do something other mechs cannot. Thus, players designing their mechs are left with a more balanced trade-off that they must consider. It's such tradeoffs that lead to variety on the field.

[Josef Nader]

Congratulations, Roland, with a few exceptions you just perfectly described the exact system that exists in the game already.

I agree with you, this is the best mechlab that the Mechwarrior franchise has ever had, and it has done more to increase diversity of builds than any other game in the series. Nobody wants a return of MW3s completely unrestricted mechlab, as then, as you say, only the mechs with the best geometry ever get used, and you only need one mech for every tonnage/weight class to really feel the full range of playstyles.

With the current system, each mech has a specific role (that will be further emphasized through quirks) and can be customized as players see fit within those restrictions. Geometry still plays an important role, but we will never see a Battlemaster as anything other than an energy-heavy, agile assault, nor will we ever see the Jägermech as anything other than a ballistics platform.

What is -not- correct is that adding yet ANOTHER layer of restrictions to the current mechlab will do anything to curtail problem builds or improve diversity on the field.

[Ultimax]

Roland, on 10 October 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

Will this result in more mech diversity? No, absolutely not. It will in fact do exactly the opposite, as there will then be effectively ONE build which will be superior to everything else. It'll basically become an exercise in finding the best weapon, and then loading it onto the mech with the best geometry. Indeed, this is actually what we saw in mechwarrior titles prior to MW4, where all the mechs were gunbags.

You're not allowed to play the "smarter than thou" card, and then go onto ignore that players will just find which ever mech has the best sized hardpoint collection, with the best geometry and play the hell out of that one single mech.


Just as myopic goofballs ranted endlessly about PPFLD like it was the Ebola virus, constantly yammered for PPC nerfs only to watch players adapt post-nerf and stuff a half dozen lasers into your face sometimes backed up by Gauss. Apparently lasers aren't as suck as people thought, and apparently players like myself who said "people will just shift to the ERLLAS or LLAS because the stats are superior" were correct - an then there is the Clan faction with their Laser advantage (whereas PP/FLD is IS advantage, good work nerfing that everyone) taking the whole thing to another level.



Players will always find the current best thing unless you hammer everything down to play like checkers (which is basically the same lack of variety).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 October 2014 - 09:31 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

What is -not- correct is that adding yet ANOTHER layer of restrictions to the current mechlab will do anything to curtail problem builds or improve diversity on the field.

Josef, we are not trying to add a layer, we're trying to replace an existing layer.

[-Halcyon-]

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....
Please, ignore the rash of threads insisting that sized hardpoints would somehow improve this game

Let me assure you that you don't speak for me, nor are you the player spokesperson, and I absolutely do want this system.
How about we ignore your thread for trying to snuff out a controversial topic with your sole opinion and blanket statements?

[Roland]

Ultimatum X, on 10 October 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

You're not allowed to play the "smarter than thou" card, and then go onto ignore that players will just find which ever mech has the best sized hardpoint collection, with the best geometry and play the hell out of that one single mech.

What hardpoint sizes allow you to do is make it so that there IS NOT such a mech that is simply the ubermech you describe here.

Without sized hardpoints, the issue that we are seeing is that in order to enable stock configurations, the system automatically enables other configurations which supercede configurations of other mechs which were actually designed to play that role.

A classic example of this would be the Catapult K2 variant. In order to handle the stock configuration with 2 machine guns, it has two ballistic slots... but the unintended consequence of allowing it to carry two ballistic weapons of any size was that you got boom cats and gauss cats, which were problematic from a game balance perspective at various points in the game's development, effectively directly resulting in various nerfs.

What sized hardpoints can do is make it so that in order to carry certain weapons combinations, you basically have to use specific chassis which are less than optimal.

As Josef points out, the current system attempts to do this, but the problem is that without sized hardpoints every mech ends up being extremely flexible, capable of performing roles FAR outside those that the variant was originally designed for with its canon configuration. The K2, for instance, was never intended to be a dual AC20 mech. And by allowing it to do that, you potentially step on the toes of other mech variants, and reduce their utility.

[Tombstoner]

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

You have solved the problem properly; by balancing the weapons in question and bringing under or overperforming mechs into line on a case-by-case basis.

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.

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.

I know that you haven't officially made any moves to implement such a system. I'm just heading this thing off before you get an unrealistic idea of how many people truly want such a system.

I don't agree at all. I for one might like a hard point size system. i cant get over the fact that a commando at 20 tons has exactly the same amount of space as the atlas.... it makes scene if they are the same general height. and they are in TT.
This is MWO size of your target maters thus space needs to mater much more then it does in TT. it shouldn't be equal.

creativity to our load outs, quirks elegant..... snicker.....lol.. sorry cant help myself. IS should not be able to modify anything.... letting players do so is the cause of so many boating problems.

[1453 R]

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

Josef, we are not trying to add a layer, we're trying to replace an existing layer.

And which layer is that?

Because if you truly, honestly, for three consecutive seconds think that restricting all 'Mechs everywhere to their stock armaments is going to somehow, someway, somewhen, allow you to excise Ghost Heat, you're living in a fantasy land.

Oiy, Josef. Want to go grab that list of horrifying stock-hardpoint-sizes-only alpha monsters that would pwnoobleration-mancrush the game under their unstoppable metal heels if they had absolutely no controls whatsoever on their alpha potential? Clearly people have forgotten all about it in their rush to try and eliminate customization from MWO as some sort of half-baked attempt to make the Awesome of all g'damned things into a top-tier competitive chassis.

Halcyon201, on 10 October 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

Let me assure you that you don't speak for me, nor are you the player spokesperson, and I absolutely do want this system.
How about we ignore your thread for trying to snuff out a controversial topic with your sole opinion and blanket statements?

Only if we're allowed to ignore all the threads by sized hardpoint proponents claiming to speak for me when they say that restricting 'Mechs across the board to their stock armaments is the greatest balancing idea in the history of the MechWarrior franchise.

[IceSerpent]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

And which layer is that?

Because if you truly, honestly, for three consecutive seconds think that restricting all 'Mechs everywhere to their stock armaments is going to somehow, someway, somewhen, allow you to excise Ghost Heat, you're living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you really need to stop and think before you post. The stated purpose of the GH is to limit/prevent boats, correct? Now do we really want to limit every single boat in game? Probably not - while we definitely wouldn't want a 9 ERRPPC DWF to exist, something like quad LL K2 or 8 ML Hunchie are probably ok, agreed? Sized hardpoints would allow us to get rid of builds we don't want around while still allowing for boats we are ok with. On top of that, it would be a much more straight-forward system that is easy to understand, thus it would help with new player retention. What positive effects does GH have that can't be provided for with this scheme?

[Josef Nader]

The Quad LL K2 and 8ML hunchies are still good. You just have to have more than one button on your mouse. That's why Ghost Heat works better than any sized hard point system. These boats can exist, they can exist on any chassis, and they're still effective, but they can't use all of their firepower on a single trigger pull, and require multiple well-placed shots to do the same effect.

Is it really better for the Warhawk to be the only mech capable of mounting and firing 4x cERPPCs, giving it a huge head start over other mechs without as much PPFLD, or is it better for all mechs with 4 energy hard points, enough tonnage, and enough space to mount 4x cERPPCs but prevent them from firing together across all chassis?

[1453 R]

Roland, on 10 October 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

What hardpoint sizes allow you to do is make it so that there IS NOT such a mech that is simply the ubermech you describe here.

Without sized hardpoints, the issue that we are seeing is that in order to enable stock configurations, the system automatically enables other configurations which supercede configurations of other mechs which were actually designed to play that role.

A classic example of this would be the Catapult K2 variant. In order to handle the stock configuration with 2 machine guns, it has two ballistic slots... but the unintended consequence of allowing it to carry two ballistic weapons of any size was that you got boom cats and gauss cats, which were problematic from a game balance perspective at various points in the game's development, effectively directly resulting in various nerfs.

What sized hardpoints can do is make it so that in order to carry certain weapons combinations, you basically have to use specific chassis which are less than optimal.

As Josef points out, the current system attempts to do this, but the problem is that without sized hardpoints every mech ends up being extremely flexible, capable of performing roles FAR outside those that the variant was originally designed for with its canon configuration. The K2, for instance, was never intended to be a dual AC20 mech. And by allowing it to do that, you potentially step on the toes of other mech variants, and reduce their utility.

The problem, Roland, is that you're just completely flat eliminating far more chassis than you'll ever make viable by restricting everything to stock hardpoint sizes.

As has been pointed out, the DRG-1C has five - count 'em, five - in the entirety of its frame which are occupied by weapons. It doesn't even have enough weapon slots to accommodate all its hardpoints, as it has four energy hardpoints but only two structural slots to put guns into those hardpoints with. The DRG-1C is effectively removed from the game with a sized hardpoint system because it is impossible to mount any sort of effective armament on the 'Mech without allowing it to use bigger guns.

The point of the Dragon in TT, as Josef said, was to be a fast-moving, sturdy slugger that backed up medium/light lances and generally was more effective in melee combat than at a distance anyways. The DRG-1C variant especially trades any remote semblance of an effective distance armament for a thickness of armoring that allows it - in level 1 TT - to be a remarkably effective puncher able to charge in and batter enemy 'Mechs to death with its bare hands.

That role does not exist in MWO. Any 60-tonner in the game can, will, and does carry the same level of armor the DRG-1C sacrifices its distance armament to carry stock, and the game disallows punching altogether. The Dragon's role, the thing it was built to do, can't be done. And it's hardly the only 'Mech in the game to suffer this fate, to say nothing of 'Mechs that were deliberately designed as in-universe failures for the purpose of enriching the lore and history of the game (Blackjack, Charger, similar).

Restrict 'Mechs everywhere to their stock armaments and you may as well just remove the Mechlab entirely and force the game into stock mode only. And even then - EVEN THEN - there will be bum variants that just don't work. And there will also be horrifying alpha monsters that nothing else in the game can even remotely touch, forcing players into using said alpha monsters or Paying The Penalty.

The quirks system will go a long way towards doing what you're all hoping a sized hardpoint system would do - giving individual 'Mechs flavor, character, and their own specializations - without destroying player choice and ruining the entire Mechlabs of every single player in the game. Why is it such a hateful idea to allow players to use what they like, instead of saying "Well you like this method of play? Great! Here's your 'Mech - THE ONE AND ONLY 'MECH IN THE ENTIRE GAME THAT DOES THIS THING NOW AND FOREVER. I hope you enjoy this one single 'Mech that uses this sharply, narrowly defined role AND CANNOT DO ANYTHING ELSE, because it's pretty much all you're ever going to get!"

If it's because you want people to have reasons to buy 'Mechs? You know what, people do that because they like 'Mechs. Because they want something new to play with, whether it's ultra uber bleeding-edge super tippy top tier or not. Possibly because it's an old favorite from TT days, or a kid's favorite BattleTech book, or another old MW game. Or maybe they just dig the thing and have some money to spend that day. If you're into this game at all, then you're going to be a 'Mech collector pretty by by default, because you think 'Mechs are great and you want to pilot them.

Why is that not enough reason for you folks?

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

The Quad LL K2 and 8ML hunchies are still good. You just have to have more than one button on your mouse. That's why Ghost Heat works better than any sized hard point system. These boats can exist, they can exist on any chassis, and they're still effective, but they can't use all of their firepower on a single trigger pull, and require multiple well-placed shots to do the same effect.

They are not good at all. Having to fire in groups means that you have to keep facing the target, so your ability to spread damage goes out of the window.

Quote

Is it really better for the Warhawk to be the only mech capable of mounting and firing 4x cERPPCs, giving it a huge head start over other mechs without as much PPFLD, or is it better for all mechs with 4 energy hard points, enough tonnage, and enough space to mount 4x cERPPCs but prevent them from firing together across all chassis?

I would say it's better for Warhawk to be the only one, because then we can easily give it some other disadvantage to balance it (if necessary, I kind of have a gut feeling that it would still be a so-so mech). This would also have an added benfit of simplifying quirks - instead of having a huge table to consult, we would be able to get away with only having quirks on a few select mechs.

Edited by IceSerpent, 10 October 2014 - 10:27 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Thus the alpha firepower is reigned in by a quirk of the design. These mechs can absolutely still perform quite well, but they aren't top tier dominant like they used to be.

As far as the Warhawk, you're missing the point. There will -always- be a mech that is top tier "meta". Trying to prevent that leaves you playing whack-a-mole, as smashing one variant out of viability opens up room for the next best mech to shine through. You will never reach a state where "all mechs are equally terrible so all are viable." It just doesn't work.

As 1453 R said, many people buy mechs because they're iconic, or because they fondly remember them from tabletops or books. Many people have mechs in their stable that are for fun, mechs that present challenges that individual player enjoys or are silly mechs for people to unwind in. Not every mech has to be a T1 competitive mech for people to have fun with it.

[Galenit]

[

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

For example, let's say that the Jäger could no longer mount PPPFLD Gauss Rifles, but you allowed my Dragon 1C build to carry them. I don't know if you noticed, but the Jäger has pretty terrible hitboxes, and its only redeeming factor is its hard points. What would stop competitive players from jumping over to the Dragon and abandoning the now useless Jäger to the trash heap? We would still have fast moving PPC/Gauss snipers, and now there would be a much smaller field of mechs that could mount PPCs and Gauss rifles to counter it.

Jäger dd: 2 arms, each with 3 ballistics and together of 6 crits together, 2x 1energy with 1 crit
Dragon 5n:, 1 arm with 3 ballistics with 7 crits together, 2 energypoints with together 2 crits

None of them can take a ppc, the dragon can take a single gauss, the jager as best a uac5 and an ac2 on both arms with together 14 pinpoint. Both have diverend characteristics, but in the end both have around 15 pinpoint damage and some other weapons.

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

People don't care about 'roles'. If the Hunchback was the only medium mech that could carry an AC20, but it had terrible hitboxes and poor hardpoint layout people just wouldn't use AC20s on medium mechs. Making some mechs super special snowflakes won't make people field those mechs if those mechs are inherently bad, or if the roles they fill aren't good in MWO. If the Awesome is the only mech that can mount multiple PPCs, people just won't field multiple PPCs. It won't give the awesome "character". It'll simply delete it from play for having bad hitboxes and a marginal specialty role.

If other mechs can have only 15 or 20 points of pinpointdamage its not a marginal role if the aws can have one of the only very few ones with 30 points. But not everyone will be able to use it, because you have to deal with the hitboxes for using the biggest pinpointdamage.
Advantages and disadvantages.

There are people using the hb, why should they still not use it?
If people dont have the skill to use the hb with an ac20, they should not use it and better use a other mech with an ac20 or another medium mech, but with no ac20.

Edited by Galenit, 10 October 2014 - 10:54 AM.

[Roland]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

The problem, Roland, is that you're just completely flat eliminating far more chassis than you'll ever make viable by restricting everything to stock hardpoint sizes.

As has been pointed out, the DRG-1C has five - count 'em, five - in the entirety of its frame which are occupied by weapons. It doesn't even have enough weapon slots to accommodate all its hardpoints, as it has four energy hardpoints but only two structural slots to put guns into those hardpoints with. The DRG-1C is effectively removed from the game with a sized hardpoint system because it is impossible to mount any sort of effective armament on the 'Mech without allowing it to use bigger guns.

A system of hardpoint size restrictions does not mean that a mech could never use larger guns than came in its stock configuration.

It merely means that certain chassis MAY have restrictions beyond simply weapon type.