Bishop Steiner, on 25 January 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:
other text is not quoted because I already did so for Butane's big post 
IDK, your idea is still better than what we have, but I think it is still a little too easy to take a mech totally outside the role it was conceived for. That is why I still tend to favor sized hardpoints. It has the same elegance in simplicity your proposal has, with less chance for abuse. I like the thought of your basic idea with the crits fixed to their locales more, but IDK if it would be too convoluted or "limiting" for people. Although listening to the cries for unlimited customization makes me think that most who feel that way realistically have no clue of which they speak anyhow.
Yeah "crit borrowing" bothered me as well; but suppose you introduce an hardpoint restriction system like a more "strict" sized hardpoint one.
I would have liked to have sized hardpoints from the beginning, but I know a lot of people who like the "inventive" of going around with a big gun at the expense of anything else. This system can allow you to do that, but not as easily as you do it now, suddendly making a 1 crit MG hardpoint capable of housing an AC 20.
I also have thought about "realism" in outfitting mechs, but the whole game, as I've been playing it from 2 years ago, is already quite far from that point of view, so that for me it's not an excuse.. I thought this system because I believe the "dynamic critical hardpoints" would be somewhat more accepted from the general public/community than fixed/sized hardpoints, if they would have to be introduced somewhat in the near future. Because they'd still allow some creativity/freedom as we're used to now that "fixed" hardpoints wouldn't.
It would still allow creativity but disallowing a lot of bad things as it is now. I wouldn't be buggered that much by 3PPCs HBK4Ps, running 15 DHSs and a nice XL engine with that hunch.. I have a reknown team-mate that usually runs a 4LL XL HBK 4P for the lulz, that would still be possible, both aren't necessarily op at all, because the thing blows up in the nick of time as soon as it gets under the enemy crosshairs/draw some attention. And they could all be housed in the hunch, so it wouldn't be so unrealistic (theoretically you'd still be using 3 of the 6 hardpoints in the hunch, borrowing "energetic pods"
from the head and the arms).
Also, we could get some mechs that we'll never see, because PGI is picking variants among those that cannot be OP (think about the Victor that should have come with 1 ballistic slot in each side torso added to that in the arm), they didn't added it because "omg 3xGauss or 3xAC20!".
Another relatively simple way, would be that for each weapon you upgrade, you may get a crit penalty.. like that if you upgrade from mediums to large lasers (borrowing hardpoints around other parts of the mech), there's not too much hassle, but if you upgrade them furthermore (making a medium laser become a PPC -changing the magnitude order of a further tier-) then you lose 1 crit slot. So an HBK 4P could reach 2xPPC and 1 ML @ max, for a total of 7 crits since you've upgraded to PPCs from medium lasers.
Anyway, whatever system it will be, I just hope that PGI will realize that the current hardpoint system is bogus and ghost heat has to go in favor of sized hardpoints, so that each variant has a reason to exist and chassis could become more specialized, rather than seeing everywhere PPCs and AC5s, or PPCs and GRs as it used before or masses of PPCs/LLs or LRM 90 boats and so on.
But I'm still waiting (better: I was waiting, now I've lost any hope) to see SRMs get back their proper dmg and splash effects, and I think we're 7 months away from that patch, so I guess they won't never ever make it... I mean to reach some good "common sense" decisions..
111
