690 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Make King Crab claws open up while Charging Gauss, or spinning up RACs.

[Acersecomic]

TheUltimateGhost, on 22 December 2020 - 03:09 AM, said:

introducing a spread mechanic removes aiming. people would still play those builds, just that everyone would perform the same in it. you might as well make them be lock-on weapons
(not to mention dakka builds are far from op, best weapons in the game currently are probably C-ERPPC and IS MPL)


most mechs would not benefit from such a change, so it is not really worth doing imo, as it only affects few mechs.
also, you make BAS absolutely OP (as long as those ears aren't super fragile, in which case you make all those mechs pretty much worthless).

It does not remove aiming, it removes 20-40pinpoint every 2 seconds at ranges of 500+ meters. People would play these builds but the spread of damage would be all over the place, resulting in results slightly better than firing an LBX at 500 meters. Stop being delusional.

As for separate hitboxes, it would not make BAS OP, it would actually end up having less armor on those hardpoints, making it easier to weaken with proper aiming, but not outright cripple the damn thing by blowing up its side torso.
These changes come in mind with hardpoint sizes as well.

[RobianPirate]

In full honesty (since I know only the mechs and not much on the technical side) I'd probably settle for filling out the FedCom CW roster. The Hellfire, Chimera, Argus, Templar, Longbow, Sunder and Hauptmann.

Alternatively, I'd be tempted to ask for a few of the Jihad-era mechs excluding the Ragnarok. I like it's design but it needs to be reworked to fit traditional Battletech mechanics before I'd want to see it. So in its place would be the Raptor-II, Legacy, Viking, Toyama, and Vanquisher. I could actually see a new mech based on the Rifleman-III (Amaris' abmush glass cannon) being added as I think Blakists would follow in Amaris in wanted super-powered mechs.

Again, I don't know the technical stuff so it's just a wishlist of mechs and not much else.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Acersecomic, on 22 December 2020 - 02:36 PM, said:

It does not remove aiming, it removes 20-40pinpoint every 2 seconds at ranges of 500+ meters. People would play these builds but the spread of damage would be all over the place, resulting in results slightly better than firing an LBX at 500 meters. Stop being delusional.

That's kinda garbage. People don't use LBX past 300m for a reason. The only one being delusional is you because you don't seem to understand how much that would hamper builds like that. I've said this before, all your doing is reducing the game into a DPS game. PPCs and Gauss will fade away because they would lose all value in a game that essentially forces chain fire.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 December 2020 - 06:34 PM.

[Brauer]

Acersecomic, on 22 December 2020 - 03:00 AM, said:

There's a lot of room for improvement of existing systems and making sure the builds become diverse and less oriented towards "kill as fast as possible" to "prepare for a variety of ranges and engagements".
Make the fights last

Sized hardpoints does nothing to make garbage-tier bracket builds viable, it just makes the few chassis that can run strong synergistic builds the meta and everything else is left behind.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 06:21 PM, said:

Sized hardpoints does nothing to make garbage-tier bracket builds viable

That's definitely true, but I've never really made that claim and is a bit of a strawman honestly. I just look at the sea of variants we have an I see instances of mechs like the HGN-IIC-A, MCII-4, and SVN-A which really have no distinction between them other than the MCII just being the better mech. Hell I would also be okay with more fine-grained kinds of hardpoints as well.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 December 2020 - 06:34 PM.

[Brauer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 December 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

That's definitely true, but I've never really made that claim and is a bit of a strawman honestly. I just look at the sea of variants we have an I see instances of mechs like the HGN-IIC-A, MCII-4, and SVN-A which really have no distinction between them other than the MCII just being the better mech. Hell I would also be okay with more fine-grained kinds of hardpoints as well.

1) I was not responding to you.
2) The MCII is not the better mech of those three. The Mad Cat II-4 has far inferior hitboxes to both the HGN and the SNV. As a mech it's honestly pretty bad. The SNV-A is the superior lrm and ATM boat of the three because it can run LRM 80 with good hitboxes and a tag if you want it. The HGN-IIC-A gets the +1 HSL quirk, but I am less familiar with it. I think the quirk might make a 4 peep alpha tenable, but idk. It can mix triple peep with ATMs or something, which is its niche when compared to the other two. Having only three missile hardpoints it's not going to out-LRM or ATM the SNV-A.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

2) The MCII is not the better mech of those three. The Mad Cat II-4 has far inferior hitboxes to both the HGN and the SNV. As a mech it's honestly pretty bad.

All three are kinda bad. I actually forgot about the hitboxes for missiles because I don't run missiles on them period because LRMs are still gross and ATM assaults feel like the wrong thing to do on an assault (just like poptarting, it feels better on mediums/heavies). You kinda hit upon the crux of it though, ultimately one is gonna have the edge on things so you would need some way to distinguish them (or my preferred approach, remove them from the game because we have a lot of superfluous variants).

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

The HGN-IIC-A gets the +1 HSL quirk, but I am less familiar with it. I think the quirk might make a 4 peep alpha tenable, but idk

It doesn't, because the mounts are still spread out enough I'd rather do doubles anyway. Only way it might be good is if you could fire all 4 at the same time.

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

1) I was not responding to you.

I'm aware, but cherry picking one bad implementation to say the idea as a whole is bad, is a strawman.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 December 2020 - 07:23 PM.

[Brauer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 December 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

I'm aware, but cherry picking one bad implementation to say the idea as a whole is bad, is a strawman.

I'm not cherry-picking if I'm saying there are already good mechs with stock loadouts that (if allowed) would be able to mount current meta and rise to the top over other mechs that receive nerfs from sized hardpoints. Nothing gets buffed by having sized hardpoints, you just see the number of viable mechs decline greatly.

Edited by Brauer, 22 December 2020 - 07:35 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 07:26 PM, said:

I'm not cherry-picking if I'm saying there are already good mechs with stock loadouts that (if allowed) would be able to mount current meta would just rise to the top over other mechs that receive nerfs from sized hardpoints. Nothing gets buffed by having sized hardpoints, you just see the number of viable mechs decline greatly.

There is nothing sized hardpoints as a system that says they have to be exact to the stock loadouts or even remotely close. Do some stock loadouts just have good hardpoints such that it wouldn't matter. Sure, as I pointed out earlier though, same could be said for hardpoint locations and hardpoint count within the current system (quite a few mechs wish they had more hardpoints to work with). So yes, you are kinda cherry picking. We could have a sized hardpoint system right now and allow the exact same configs we have. The size of the hardpoint is ultimately arbitrary provided it meet one simple requirement: allow the stock config, that's literally it. Everything outside of the stock loadout is dev dictated and that part does matter because I'm sure PGI would go overkill and make your nightmare come true.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 December 2020 - 07:38 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Acersecomic, on 22 December 2020 - 03:00 AM, said:

Introduce Ballistic Recoil. The more ballistics fire at the same time or in a very short period from one another, the more recoil and spread there is. It would stop the insanely broken quad AC5, x8 AC2, DakkaCat builds and such other bad habits.

This is bad. Yeah the game needs to be less alpha and less peekaboo IMHO, but this just makes Ballistics bad.

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 06:21 PM, said:

Sized hardpoints does nothing to make garbage-tier bracket builds viable, it just makes the few chassis that can run strong synergistic builds the meta and everything else is left behind.

Even in MW4 ( I played MW4 Mercs lately ), Bracket-builds aren't exactly that good either. The winning builds are the synergistic ones. Bracket Builds are only best use with missions where you don't really need to use overwhelming fire to kill objectives, not in Solaris which MWO is closest.

The sized hardpoint however, IMHO, though probably with slot recalibration it will make certain mechs more effective because hardpoint inflation.

The Sized Hardpoint in MW4 means you can have more but smaller weapons. In MW4, if you have a 4-slot Hardpoint, you can either put 4 1-slot or 2 2-slot, one 1-slot + 3 slot weapon. Right now, it's just a fixed weapon count regardless of size, and is only limited by the available slots.

Something like the Shadow-Cat could possibly boat more smaller weapons, and be somewhat more effective like 6x ERML. Mechs could be proper Machine-Gun Boats, and so on. The MCII-B with as-is slot-count to MW4 styled sized-hardpoints, since it uses 2x UAC20 stock, should be capable of 8x UAC2s, would be just incredibly horrible to fight against.

It should also make variants a bit more important due to artificially gimping or propping up mechs. The Centurion for example, the arm requires a specific variant to run an AC20 and that is just a matter of 1 slot, but with Sized Hardpoint we could restrict that to something smaller like only an AC10 to a specific mech. Then again, why would you want to do that?

That being said, introducing this massive mechlab change isn't conducive to the current environment. The Skill-Tree change did put off a lot of people I figure it will do the same.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 December 2020 - 08:06 PM.

[Brauer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 December 2020 - 07:37 PM, said:

There is nothing sized hardpoints as a system that says they have to be exact to the stock loadouts or even remotely close. Do some stock loadouts just have good hardpoints such that it wouldn't matter. Sure, as I pointed out earlier though, same could be said for hardpoint locations and hardpoint count within the current system (quite a few mechs wish they had more hardpoints to work with). So yes, you are kinda cherry picking. We could have a sized hardpoint system right now and allow the exact same configs we have. The size of the hardpoint is ultimately arbitrary provided it meet one simple requirement: allow the stock config, that's literally it. Everything outside of the stock loadout is dev dictated and that part does matter because I'm sure PGI would go overkill and make your nightmare come true.

Yes, hardpoint numbers and locations helps determine what's good and what's trash-tier. The difference is that when you add hardpoint sizes on top of those two factors you have an additional way for a chassis to be restricted from having good loadouts. You've been moving the goalposts between using sized hardpoints to restrict the mechlab (which just makes mechs that have decent hitboxes and stock-loadouts that translate to good hardpoints the meta), and saying that actually it doesn't need to change anything (which....would just be a pointless change). Given you've been much more committed to locking down the mechlab, like the rest of the sized-hardpoints crowd, I think it's fair to say that sized-hardpoints would just add another reason to the long list of reasons why a particular mech chassis would be bad and, at best, leave the strong mechs largely untouched. Sized hardpoints is just a nerf.

The6thMessenger, on 22 December 2020 - 07:38 PM, said:

That being said, introducing this massive mechlab change isn't conducive to the current environment. The Skill-Tree change did put off a lot of people I figure it will do the same.

I may not have played MW4 PvP, but I'm aware of the system and played it solo back in the day. I do agree that a massive change like sized-hardpoints would drive people away, much like other large and poorly thought out changes have in the past.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 08:38 PM, said:

Yes, hardpoint numbers and locations helps determine what's good and what's trash-tier. The difference is that when you add hardpoint sizes on top of those two factors you have an additional way for a chassis to be restricted from having good loadouts

You also have the ability to restrict build versatility of some mechs. Ultimately though this is kinda the point and to be clear, quirks work the same way you just are doing a soft nudge rather than outright restriction.

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 08:38 PM, said:

. You've been moving the goalposts between using sized hardpoints to restrict the mechlab (which just makes mechs that have decent hitboxes and stock-loadouts that translate to good hardpoints the meta), and saying that actually it doesn't need to change anything (which....would just be a pointless change).

No, that's not moving the goal posts, that's me trying to explain away your strawman and make it clear to you that it is pretty arbitrary in what gets what (meaning flexible). If every hardpoint had the maximum size such it allowed any weapon within the current system, it technically would be using the sized hardpoint system while not hampering anything.

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 08:38 PM, said:

Given you've been much more committed to locking down the mechlab, like the rest of the sized-hardpoints crowd, I think it's fair to say that sized-hardpoints would just add another reason to the long list of reasons why a particular mech chassis would be bad and, at best, leave the strong mechs largely untouched. Sized hardpoints is just a nerf.

I'm committed to locking down the mechlab because trying to give niches to 618 unique variants is insane. Even if we reduced every chassis to 1-2 different variants, that's still upwards of 100-200 different mechs. There is bound to be some overlap without either locking down equipment/builds to specific mechs to give them a gimmick. This game acts much like any hero shooter like Overwatch/Siege/Apex, if you can't release content worth playing why bother making it in the first place. Hell I wouldn't be against a no dupes rule if the implemented mech selection after the map vote either, it always made MRBC more interesting.

So yes, I do want to see nerfs to some mechs but not in the way you keep trying to strawman. I just want to cut down on build diversity of some mechs. So some mechs like the Hunchie IIC (before the Vapor Eagle dropped) don't dominate an entire class because it can do laser vomit, dakka, PPC poptart, etc because it just so happens to have the hardpoints and mounts to do all of those better than any other medium. If the Hunchie IIC hadn't been able to PPC poptart for example the Nova and Huntsman could've shined better.

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 08:38 PM, said:

I may not have played MW4 PvP, but I'm aware of the system and played it solo back in the day. I do agree that a massive change like sized-hardpoints would drive people away, much like other large and poorly thought out changes have in the past.

Massive changes are all they have left, because small changes arent going to fix whats broke in this game nor is it gonna get people back in the numbers they probably want. This game isn't going to become the next No Man's Sky.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 December 2020 - 10:23 PM.

[Acersecomic]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 December 2020 - 06:20 PM, said:

That's kinda garbage. People don't use LBX past 300m for a reason. The only one being delusional is you because you don't seem to understand how much that would hamper builds like that. I've said this before, all your doing is reducing the game into a DPS game. PPCs and Gauss will fade away because they would lose all value in a game that essentially forces chain fire.

YES! THAT IS THE FKIN POINT! To hamper builds like x2 UAC10 x2 UAC5, x4 AC5, x4 UAC5, x3 UAC5 x2 UAC10, x6 AC2, x8 AC2.... THE Point is to hamper bllshit builds like this that have absolutely bonkers dps and pinpoint focus. The whole point is to increase kill times to make for healthier fights!
And in what world would this reduce the use of PPCs and Gauss rifles exactly. It would even the playing field. Not only for these two weapons but for all. Suddenly you'd have to maybe put less of the same ballistics and add some other weapon systems? HUH? Imagine that, a mech with more than ONE WEAPON MODEL! What a crazy world.
Imagine if people build for a variety of ranges and weapon types and weren't punished for it by running into some fuko with quad ballistics shredding you, because you can't torso twist since it fires continuously without penalty, concern for heat or spread of its projectiles? If you stare down a ballistic boat you're gonna get blown in seconds, if you torso twist all you'll do is take all the damage and deal none.
It's like you're defending drugs. It hurts the game but as long as it pads the "hurr durr skill dakka" it's fine.

Imagine that, you can't alpha every time you press left mouse button, you maybe have to chain fire or control how many ballistics you boat. What insanity, you actually have to think about how you shoot. Hot damn it's almost like we're playing Battletech... oh wait, WE ARE but people think this is CoD with giant robots. It's not!

Brauer, on 22 December 2020 - 06:21 PM, said:

Sized hardpoints does nothing to make garbage-tier bracket builds viable, it just makes the few chassis that can run strong synergistic builds the meta and everything else is left behind.

Well that's why we're discussing, suggesting and working on things, something PGI hasn't been doing since the game released. The issue is not black and white, there is fine tuning. We can't just fire "IT WILL BE GOOD!" or "NO, IT'S HOT GARBAGE" right out of the box. Individual cases need to be examined and sizes/fixes applied. That's why we have quirks after all.

Edited by Acersecomic, 23 December 2020 - 04:35 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Acersecomic, on 23 December 2020 - 04:32 AM, said:

Imagine that, you can't alpha every time you press left mouse button, you maybe have to chain fire or control how many ballistics you boat. What insanity, you actually have to think about how you shoot. Hot damn it's almost like we're playing Battletech... oh wait, WE ARE but people think this is CoD with giant robots. It's not!

So not sure but have you played CoD? They have predictable recoil now such that you have to build reflexes to counteract it. I don't think that makes it a "thinking man's shooter" any more than recoil would here because people will just learn to shoot through it increasing the skill floor for the weapons. You want fire control? Well you have it because none of those builds are heat neutral and eventually they all reach their heat cap. Forced chain fire is a great way to just end up with brawling dakka spam, no real thinking necessary there, just close the gap and dakka.

TBH, your complaints about Dakka sound just like complaints about Gauss/PPC and Gauss Vomit before it. The whole reason weapons are combined like this is because they work well together. Either they have similar velocities, damage profiles, or both. This is what should be encouraged not discouraged. Why are assaults that have only ballistic and missile hardpoints typically used as brawling assaults? Because the only combination of both weapon types that works well together are MRMs/SRMs and 20 class ACs. You want this to stop? Get new weapons from each weapon type to be added with the intent of mixing with those weapons. Why do UAC10s get mixed with more UAC10s or 5s? Nothing with its range profile exists that has a similar projectile velocity for other types of weapons (PPCs do on the IS side, mind you).

You want a thinkin man's shooter but you want the strategy and tactics to be mind-numbingly dull. You don't want terrain to matter and don't like that people aren't shootin guns ablazin while pushing into each other until slugging it out with each other real close. That doesn't sound like thinking, that sounds like Clan trials (haha, get it).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 December 2020 - 08:25 AM.

[Acersecomic]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 December 2020 - 08:20 AM, said:

So not sure but have you played CoD? They have predictable recoil now such that you have to build reflexes to counteract it. I don't think that makes it a "thinking man's shooter" any more than recoil would here because people will just learn to shoot through it increasing the skill floor for the weapons. You want fire control? Well you have it because none of those builds are heat neutral and eventually they all reach their heat cap. Forced chain fire is a great way to just end up with brawling dakka spam, no real thinking necessary there, just close the gap and dakka.

TBH, your complaints about Dakka sound just like complaints about Gauss/PPC and Gauss Vomit before it. The whole reason weapons are combined like this is because they work well together. Either they have similar velocities, damage profiles, or both. This is what should be encouraged not discouraged. Why are assaults that have only ballistic and missile hardpoints typically used as brawling assaults? Because the only combination of both weapon types that works well together are MRMs/SRMs and 20 class ACs. You want this to stop? Get new weapons from each weapon type to be added with the intent of mixing with those weapons. Why do UAC10s get mixed with more UAC10s or 5s? Nothing with its range profile exists that has a similar projectile velocity for other types of weapons (PPCs do on the IS side, mind you).

You want a thinkin man's shooter but you want the strategy and tactics to be mind-numbingly dull. You don't want terrain to matter and don't like that people aren't shootin guns ablazin while pushing into each other until slugging it out with each other real close. That doesn't sound like thinking, that sounds like Clan trials (haha, get it).

I'm trying to comprehend just how are you so convinced in your words that are completely and utterly so wrong and stupid that I am just... I am speechless.

THE POINT IS TO NOT HAVE ALL THOSE SAME WEAPONS MIXED TOGETHER! Do you know why I am comparing it to CoD? Because it's point and press left mouse button. Do you know what builds in MWO have come down to? Point and press left mouse button. No weapon cycling, no being mindful of ranges, flight speeds.... it's just everything that can be fired at once, YAY INTELLIGENCE. I could use any regular old shooter, CoD is just on the menu because it is famous. Rainbow Six could have also been used simply because it is "point, press one button" and that's always enough to kill. Do not mention "yeah but you can also do this or that or what if riot shield" or whatever. Irrelevant, niche cases.

People of great skill being able to work through a restrictive mechanic are rewarded by being able to use something very powerful and do it effectively. I don't care if there is recoil or something and some skilled pilot manages through all that play effectively and come out on top. Kudos to that player! And sure both bad and good players can play the same build now and better player will come out on top without a doubt, but those bad players will still completely ruin it for others when they core em and then die anyways.
Skill floors/ceilings exists for a good reason. Breaking those barriers is skill. There is no skill involved right now with pointing at someone 20 pinpoint alpha every 2 seconds because "dakka go brrrrrr". Nothing but gauss is heat neutral but just because something builds up heat doesn't mean it's significant enough to matter at all. Quad AC/5 or UAC/5 can blow off a torso from a King Crab accurately and effectively before it reaches any critical heat levels. I've done it today, couldn't have cared less about what the King was using because it didn't matter due to my overwhelming pinpoint dps.
Yours is the same argument as a car going 150 on a 50 mph road and saying "oh but he'll run out of fuel eventually".

Weapons working well together means more damage per shot, meaning faster kill times, resulting is way more one sided fights, in faster fights. "Oh look an assau... aaand he's gone. I had an UAC/20 + x2 UAC/10 MadCatB. It took me about 7-10 seconds to core an Atlas. Man look at that Atlas, what a load of armor, hahahaha I joke, dakka go brrrr! Man it must have felt so fun for that guy to be dead in seconds in one of the most armored mechs in the game. I didn't even care that he torso twisted, I just waited for him to turn to take a shot and I unloaded another 80 point pinpoint alpha to his CT without worrying about heat.
What about my Roughneck? AC20 + x3 SRM6A. Usually takes 2 to 3 alphas to blow off a torso from another Heavy and some Assaults, not to mention how in 1-2 it cores mediums.
These builds are problematic! That's why there is Ghost Heat, why you can't fire more than 2 Gauss or 2 Gauss+PPC and vice versa. TO STOP BLLSHT builds like that!
Chain firing would at least reduce the amount of instant pinpoint and lower the DPS, at least allow people to face the enemy after a torso twist and not receive a death penalty just for engaging the enemy.

I want a thinking man's shooter, and making people MAKE SOME EFFORT TO KILL SOMEONE and use a bit of tactic is not mind numbingly dull, pressing one button the entire match is. And you are advocating mind numbingly dull gameplay. I want that stupidity to be gone by reducing the effectiveness of such one-trick-pony builds.
By carrying different weapon types, ranges etc PEOPLE WOULD TAKE MORE CONSIDERATION OF THE TERRAIN because they'd have to be mindful of what and where they shoot and how they approach the fight. Although maps need a complete overhaul on their end for that since every map only has 1 or 2 choke points anyways and they're like 5 minutes of walking apart, you might as well afk if you're gonna try to flank on most maps.

Like... how can you be so completely wrong in what you're accusing me of?
I propose changes that would make people think how they build and fire weapons, you claim that to be less strategic and more simple, when in fact that would complicate things and make people think how they shoot.
But you do you, charge at the enemy and call it flanking.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Acersecomic, on 23 December 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

THE POINT IS TO NOT HAVE ALL THOSE SAME WEAPONS MIXED TOGETHER! Do you know why I am comparing it to CoD? Because it's point and press left mouse button. Do you know what builds in MWO have come down to? Point and press left mouse button. No weapon cycling, no being mindful of ranges, flight speeds.... it's just everything that can be fired at once, YAY INTELLIGENCE. I could use any regular old shooter, CoD is just on the menu because it is famous. Rainbow Six could have also been used simply because it is "point, press one button" and that's always enough to kill. Do not mention "yeah but you can also do this or that or what if riot shield" or whatever. Irrelevant, niche cases.

CoD has bullet drop and isn't hit scan so it isn't just point and click, plus now that they have predictable recoil like CS:GO you have to build in that reflex to control the recoil to keep it on target. I'm not sure how that matters though? This is the part I legitimately don't understand, why does positioning and tactics not seem to matter to you? Do you legitimately think players should have to play a minigame just to fire to make this a "thinking man's shooter"?

Acersecomic, on 23 December 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

I want a thinking man's shooter, and making people MAKE SOME EFFORT TO KILL SOMEONE and use a bit of tactic is not mind numbingly dull, pressing one button the entire match is.

Then you should've played comp? Expecting PUG queue to magically be coordinated and not be mind numbingly dull to kill potatoes is just......not understanding how games work period.

Acersecomic, on 23 December 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

By carrying different weapon types, ranges etc PEOPLE WOULD TAKE MORE CONSIDERATION OF THE TERRAIN because they'd have to be mindful of what and where they shoot and how they approach the fight.

No, they wouldn't. Bracket builds are designed for two setups:

• If they outrange you, you close the gap to utilize your superior short range DPS.
  
• If you outrange them, you stay at range for as long as possible to whittle them down and do uncontested damage.

People take into consideration the terrain, it's why new players complain about the exact thing you are complaining about, getting cored because they walked into view of several people. The ability to punish people is important because without it they would just waltz around with impunity (ie not care about terrain).

I'm not responding to the rest of your rant because it is just that, a noncoherent rant.

Acersecomic, on 23 December 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

Chain firing would at least reduce the amount of instant pinpoint and lower the DPS, at least allow people to face the enemy after a torso twist and not receive a death penalty just for engaging the enemy.

It doesn't lower DPS unless you can't chainfire through all your weapons before the shortest is recycled. It does limit your ability to neuter a push though meaning cover stops mattering, which is why you are effectively dumbing down the game. Just nothing but mind numbingly dumb rushes into each other blasting with big bore dakka like you are already doing apparently with UAC20s/10s. It's also funny how you are bringing up brawling builds though, given that's what you would end up using with your changes, it will just take a little longer.

[Acersecomic]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 December 2020 - 02:26 PM, said:

snip

It's like I'm talking to a brick... not even a brick wall but a brick... beyond ridiculous.
Keep the game stale, mind-numbing and completely opposite of giant stompy robots then. Have it decline and waste away as it has been year after year due to PGI incompetence and them having vocal support from the likes of you.

What a shame to have such a license waste away.

[Horseman]

Acersecomic, on 23 December 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

No weapon cycling, no being mindful of ranges, flight speeds....

Please try saying that after trading with an AC2 ANH... in a brawl Atlas... at 1000m.

Will9761, on 21 December 2020 - 03:43 PM, said:

PGI won the case against HG as it was dismissed with prejudice, so that means that Harmony Gold cannot ever sue them, HBS and CGL ever again. So if you ever wondered why we have been seeing mechs like the Warhammer IIC, Rifleman IIC, and Marauder II in this game, then that is why.

PGI din't win the case, it was settled out of court under unknown terms.

Edited by Horseman, 24 December 2020 - 05:55 AM.

[Vectoron The Black Minister]

Crusader plz