336 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

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.

Josef, I am not trying to prevent top tier meta. It can be made to include large number of different mechs via fixing weapon balance, but that's a different story. What I am trying to do is to get rid of freaking ghost heat.

[Josef Nader]

People won't use the Awesome when the Victor exists, with its huge engine cap, AC20 and large pulse laser (30 damage that is close enough to FLD on a faster, jumpier chassis with hitboxes that don't breathe with their mouth open).

As far as the Jäger and Dragon, nobody would use either one, instead taking a K2 (Paired PPCs for 20 PPFLD) because it's just flat better than the other two options.

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Josef, I am not trying to prevent top tier meta. It can be made to include large number of different mechs via fixing weapon balance, but that's a different story. What I am trying to do is to get rid of freaking ghost heat.

And what you're failing to recognize is that certain mechs are designed to be alphaboat death stars, and these mechs dominated tabletop as well.

Edited by Josef Nader, 10 October 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[1453 R]

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

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.

Can't do quad LL CPLT-K2. The pair of torso-mounted hardpoints aren't big enough for large lasers, all they can fit are medium-class lasers or below.

IceSerpent, on 10 October 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

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.

I want the huge table. The huge table is going to be awesome. The huge table adds real character and individuality to 'Mechs. The huge table is going to be a strength of the game if it's handle at all properly. Why wouldn't you want targeted fixes/additions to every 'Mech out there instead of just using the quirks system to smash down the tiny handle of 'Mechs that don't have horrible armaments according to TT canon into being horrible some other way instead.

Roland, on 10 October 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

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.

Oh, for...!

Restricting 'Mechs from taking larger weapons than their stock configuration allows IS WHAT SIZED HARDPOINTS MEANS. Is that not the absolute and entire point of a sized hardpoints system, so that 'Mechs that aren't Awesomes aren't able to take those big nasty game-ruining child-touching PPPPPPFFLDLDLD cannons nobody wants in the game anymore? If that's not what you're aiming for, then the entire system is nothing but an excuse for players who don't like the 'Mechs that are currently on top to smash those 'Mechs and try and put their own favorite 'Mechs on top, or a naive and futile attempt to say "There won't be any 'Mechs on top if every 'Mech in the game is completely crap!"

Neither is a good reason to ruin every 'Mech currently being played by every player in MWO.

[Josef Nader]

Amen! Bring on the huge table!

Edited by Josef Nader, 10 October 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

A’ight. Time to have some fun.



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

Arbitrary =/= Bad, faulty logic on your part based on groundless assumptions.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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

First off, Stalker vs Awesome (age old debate)
Second, omnipods and Timber Wolf S vs Summoner
Third, Griffin GRF-1N vs Wolverine WVR-7K
Fourth, Cataphract CTF-3D vs all other heavies, but specifically the other Cataphracts
etc etc

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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.

As Roland pointed out, controlling loadouts is very much their job, otherwise what was the point with the current Hardpoint system? Stopping this game from devolving into MW3.......funny how that works.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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

Not if it is irrational. No one likes change (most hate it), but that doesn't mean it is bad.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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?!

Hyperbole, give me a hundred perfectly fun builds that get made invalid by at least my hardpoint suggestion. Second, failing at what problem? The meta is a product of weapons being constantly nerfed because certain mechs are outperforming others in almost all possible roles to where all we are left with is really fast laser boats which are partially due to the fact swappable omnipods added a layer of complexity to the realm of loadout control. Not to mention you have no idea on whether it will or not, I have seen it work before in a Mechwarrior game, you are just speculating (maybe because of the belief that MWO is so 'different' from the other Mechwarriors, that is my speculation for the day).

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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.

Devastator and Pillager both mount IS XLs, good luck with that. They were squishy even in TT, outside of the Stealth Armor Pillager, that thing was a beast. Not that ghost heat would affect either anyway since they both abuse Gauss to boost their alpha. As for not allowing the removal of Ghost Heat, you do realize the Nova Prime is hot as f*** with just 6 ERML, even without ghost heat you still aren't going to be able to run that much without suffering from huge heat issues. The Warhawk would be in a similar boat (I made a funny), the Gauss/2 ERPPC build would still probably outperform it because you perform a similar PPFLD alpha, have a weapon firing even while hot, etc. All the boats people are worried about would be lesser troll builds than the 6 PPC Stalker ever was.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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.

Strawmen and Hyperbole
I never suggested the removal of 3 UAC5 builds or dual Gauss, just twin AC20s (I agreed with the Hardcore dev team on making it an Assault only build). Nor do I think it should suck because Battletech (if only we could have gotten the Rifleman though).

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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.

I wouldn't call the Sparky or BJ-1X laughable, but I do agree that IS energy pales in comparison with Clan energy weapons, but that is a whole different conversation because that isn't something sized hardpoints sets out to solve.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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?

Garbage mechs are garbage because not only are they pidgeon-holed into a certain role, they are outperformed in that very role by more versatile mechs. So they goal is to spread the wealth in a way, mechs that used to be master of all are gonna find themselves able to run less builds while worse mechs will find themselves able to run what they were before (because they were bad). Again with the strawmen though, seriously, it only hurts the argument you are making by adding the part in bold.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

“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.

Hyperbole, nowhere did I say it won't fix anything (it will fix the boogeyman that spawned Ghost Heat), but also is part of a much larger picture that is balance in Mechwarrior. Curious what is it with this Jagermech obsession though, I highly doubt the Jagermech's power solely resides in the Boomjager build.

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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!

First, sized hardpoints does not mean the Dragon will have to be restricted to popguns. You are basing your opinion on false assumptions.
Second, I remember the majority of Dragon pilots favoring Gauss over any other Autocannon because it fit the Skirmisher playstyle better (granted this was back before Gauss exploded easy), so what goal do light autocannon quirks serve if they don't fit the playstyle of the dragon anyway? Unless it gives you boosted damage at expense of recycle time I don't see it changing things for the poor Dragon. Not that quirks couldn't be added with sized hardpoints.

Regardless, much of your point is lost on the fact it all hinges on your false assumption.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 10 October 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Galenit]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

People won't use the Awesome when the Victor exists, with its huge engine cap, AC20 and large pulse laser (30 damage that is close enough to FLD on a faster, jumpier chassis with hitboxes that don't breathe with their mouth open).

As far as the Jäger and Dragon, nobody would use either one, instead taking a K2 (Paired PPCs for 20 PPFLD) because it's just flat better than the other two options.

You try to compare a brawler at 270m to a longrange support ?

The k2 has 2 ppcs with 20 point on the high shoulders and does nothing over 90m, the jaeger can have up to 14 points but with less heat and more dps, the dragon has the 15 point long range gauss to look around the corner.

Edited by Galenit, 10 October 2014 - 11:08 AM.

[verybad]

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.

No, it didn't get touched in Closed beta, and no, a lot of people want this, please don't pretend to speak for everyone because you seem to want a certain thing.

It led to more distinction in MW4 between mechs, and it could do so here also. Any mech in MWO with 3 energy hardpoints is potentially an Awesome, so the Awesome has no particular role, it ends up being ignored for the most part because it can't do it's iconic role as well as other mechs in this game.

The creativity you describe is the opposite of creativity. It leads to the best loadout going onto the best mech, and it actually leads to less variety in mech loadouts and mech choices.

[1453 R]

Galenit, on 10 October 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

...the dragon has the 15 point long range gauss to look around the corner.

No it doesn't. No Dragon in the game has a large enough ballistic hardpoint, according to the sized hardpoints people, to utilize a Gauss rifle. Hell, the Flame? Currently seen as a Tier 3, and pretty easily the best Dragon? Its high-mounted left-shoulder ballistic, the very reason it's considered good, would be down to a 1-slot hardpoint capable of mounting 1x AC/2 or 1x machine gun. It wouldn't be able to so much as emulate the Shadow Hawk the Dragon was meant to replace in Combine units and sling a high-shoulder AC/5. It would be 1x AC/2, 1x machine gun, or leave the hardpoint blank.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

No it doesn't. No Dragon in the game has a large enough ballistic hardpoint, according to the sized hardpoints people, to utilize a Gauss rifle.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong.
Sure, some people listing of hardpoints for the challenge may have suggested this, but this hardly means those hardpoints are supported by all who support sized hardpoints. Case in point, my own suggestion which you obviously ignored because you saw another mention of sized hardpoints and immediately started spewing hyperbole and strawmen.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 10 October 2014 - 11:18 AM.

[DocBach]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

No it doesn't. No Dragon in the game has a large enough ballistic hardpoint, according to the sized hardpoints people, to utilize a Gauss rifle. Hell, the Flame? Currently seen as a Tier 3, and pretty easily the best Dragon? Its high-mounted left-shoulder ballistic, the very reason it's considered good, would be down to a 1-slot hardpoint capable of mounting 1x AC/2 or 1x machine gun. It wouldn't be able to so much as emulate the Shadow Hawk the Dragon was meant to replace in Combine units and sling a high-shoulder AC/5. It would be 1x AC/2, 1x machine gun, or leave the hardpoint blank.

That's a great point. If PGI made sized hardpoints, it would probably be a technical impossibility to change the sizes of individual hard points in the case of the DRG-1C, or be too much work, compared to say a fix like changing the entire combat engine to add a mechanic to the combat portion of the game that would increase time to kill, like non-pinpoint convergence and the like.

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 11:25 AM.

[1453 R]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

That's a great point. If PGI made sized hardpoints, it would probably be a technical impossibility to change the sizes of individual hard points in the case of the DRG-1C, or be too much work, compared to say a fix like changing the entire combat engine to add a mechanic to the combat portion of the game that would increase time to kill, like non-pinpoint convergence and the like.

Question.

If the Dragon gets to put a Gauss rifle where a 1-slot ballistic weapon used to be, but neither the Catapult nor the JagerMech get to anymore...how is it that the Catapult and JagerMech pilots aren't allowed to raise the Devil's own ruckus over such blatantly preferential treatment?

Because even as someone who prefers Dragons over Cats and Jags, I'd be right behind them waving a flag myself over what is blind-deaf obviously an unfair and destructive nerf to machines that really don't cause nearly as many problems as people continue to swear up, down, and sideways they do.

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

And what you're failing to recognize is that certain mechs are designed to be alphaboat death stars, and these mechs dominated tabletop as well.

What makes you think that I don't recognize that?

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Can't do quad LL CPLT-K2. The pair of torso-mounted hardpoints aren't big enough for large lasers, all they can fit are medium-class lasers or below.

That's only the case if we want torso hardpoints to not be big enough, which is not a given.

Quote

I want the huge table. The huge table is going to be awesome. The huge table adds real character and individuality to 'Mechs. The huge table is going to be a strength of the game if it's handle at all properly. Why wouldn't you want targeted fixes/additions to every 'Mech out there instead of just using the quirks system to smash down the tiny handle of 'Mechs that don't have horrible armaments according to TT canon into being horrible some other way instead.

Because "fly-the-spreadsheet" games are not fun. I see where you coming from, but I'll take KISS principle over a huge table any day.

Quote

Restricting 'Mechs from taking larger weapons than their stock configuration allows IS WHAT SIZED HARDPOINTS MEANS.

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. It doesn't have to have strict correlation to stock configurations. Using stock configuration as a general guideline makes sense, why reinvent the wheel after all, but there's no inherent requierment that calls for an absolute 1-to-1 correlation to stock.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Question.

If the Dragon gets to put a Gauss rifle where a 1-slot ballistic weapon used to be, but neither the Catapult nor the JagerMech get to anymore...how is it that the Catapult and JagerMech pilots aren't allowed to raise the Devil's own ruckus over such blatantly preferential treatment?

More false assumptions, who said the Jagermech would be unable to mount Gauss?
Even if it didn't get the sized hardpoints to do so the first pass, 3054 brings with it the JM6-DG, so at some point it would get the ability to mount 2 Gauss.

[Xarian]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Restricting 'Mechs from taking larger weapons than their stock configuration allows IS WHAT SIZED HARDPOINTS MEANS.

No, it isn't, and the fact that you can't grasp that is somewhat disturbing.

Some mechs carry a MG (ballistic hardpoint). That ballistic hardpoint might be restricted to "Class 3 ballistics or smaller". "Class 3 ballistics and smaller" might mean "MG, AC/2, or AC/5". AC/2 and AC/5 are bigger than the MG and weigh more, but are also smaller than a Gauss rifle. Thus, the mech is restricted from replacing their MG with a Gauss Rifle, but they could still replace their MG with an AC/5.

In other words, the stock loadouts don't determine the maximum hardpoint size. It's that simple.

[DocBach]

1453 R, on 10 October 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Question.

If the Dragon gets to put a Gauss rifle where a 1-slot ballistic weapon used to be, but neither the Catapult nor the JagerMech get to anymore...how is it that the Catapult and JagerMech pilots aren't allowed to raise the Devil's own ruckus over such blatantly preferential treatment?

Because even as someone who prefers Dragons over Cats and Jags, I'd be right behind them waving a flag myself over what is blind-deaf obviously an unfair and destructive nerf to machines that really don't cause nearly as many problems as people continue to swear up, down, and sideways they do.

With hardpoint sizes, the Catapult K2 could carry PPC's still, two of them -- something very few other IS Heavy 'Mechs can do (though because PPC's would be so limited to specific chassis, a lot of the balance changes made against them recently like the speed hit would probably need to be reversed), giving it a defined role on the battlefield right there; carrying two PPC's something that currently every 'Mech can do, so a role it isn't even considered by most since they just rip everything out for gauss rifles becomes something that in a hardpoint sized system makes it unique.

The Cataphract would still be able to carry a gauss rifle in several of its configurations if you are looking at a 1-1 hardpoint size swap idea since the AC/10 is the same size as the gauss rifle. The 3D, long considered the best of the Cataphracts (and the best IS heavy 'Mech in the game, by the tier list) would see its ability to carry a Gauss removed in such a system as the LB-10X is smaller than a gauss rifle -- this looks like I'd have to make a critical decision; do I want the jumping ability (due to be revised yet again to be more effective) of the 3D, which is now restricted to a build like 2 UAC5's, or do I want the FLD of the 1X's Gauss rifle/PPC combo?

As for the Jagermech, I could see the DD getting enlarged ballistic slots in the arm so it could carry at least dual Gauss. This keeps the 65 ton dual gauss player (K2/Current Jager pilots) happy, and gives the IS a FLD heavy to match the Clans at range (also a balance issue if we ever see the Vulture C arms).

Edited by DocBach, 10 October 2014 - 11:51 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

(also a balance issue if we ever see the Vulture C arms).

The Mad Dog C would have to sacrifice some serious armor to mount twin Gauss with any decent amount of ammo, so we are safe until they give us the Cauldron Born.

[Xarian]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

If PGI made sized hardpoints, it would probably be a technical impossibility to change the sizes of individual hard points in the case of the DRG-1C, or be too much work, compared to say a fix like changing the entire combat engine to add a mechanic to the combat portion of the game that would increase time to kill, like non-pinpoint convergence and the like.

Convergence is a netcode and engine issue, and represents a technical problem "under the hood" that PGI isn't in a great position to fix right now - because they didn't write the game engine.

Sized hardpoints is a mechlab restriction issue. It's functionally identical to the code that prevents you from taking 50t of weapons on a 35t mech, or the code that requires you to have an omnipod in every body location. In other words, not technically impossible, improbable, or even difficult. PGI wrote that code from the ground up, including which hardpoints are on each mech, so it's definitely possible. The code just has to check for the new restrictions when you add a new weapon, save your mech, or attempt to drop in a mech - not that hard - in fact, PGI just did the same thing with omnipods.

There are a lot of mechs in the game, however, and setting their hardpoint sizes would take a bit of elbow grease. So you're right that it would take a bit of work - but it wouldn't have to be done all at once. They could do it mech-by-mech, introducing the restrictions every week until they were all done.

[Ultimax]

Galenit, on 10 October 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

You try to compare a brawler at 270m to a longrange support ?

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

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

[Xarian]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

As for the Jagermech, I could see the DD getting enlarged ballistic slots in the arm so it could carry at least dual Gauss. This keeps the 65 ton dual gauss player (K2/Current Jager pilots) happy, and gives the IS a FLD heavy to match the Clans at range (also a balance issue if we ever see the Vulture C arms).

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. 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.

Edited by Xarian, 10 October 2014 - 11:58 AM.

[occusoj]

Quote

In other words, the stock loadouts don't determine the maximum hardpoint size. It's that simple.

So its going to be totally arbitray?
Not that the forum raging about some builds beeing ruined wont be fun, quite the opposite, but is this expected to yield less worse balance than we have now?

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?

Quote

This keeps the 65 ton dual gauss player (K2/Current Jager pilots) happy,

Since I will have to do the grind for three Jaegers -two of them I definately dont want to own/play- because "we" decided dat uber OP gauss K2 needs to be nerfed theres not much of a chance Im going to be happy with it.

Why is there even so much rage about that Gauss K2? Look what engine it packs and where its weapons are. Its slow, fragile, stuffed with explosive rifles and has low mounted weapons that its slow engine needs ages to get over a ridge.
Its like the AC40 version, it sucks compared to the Jaeger, why remove it? Its not even a problem at all. K2s are already quite rare in games.