690 replies to this topic

[w0qj]

I feel that one can change the mech bonus to "Set of 6" bonus from the current "Set of 8".
Simplest solution!

chaosshade2638, on 09 December 2020 - 02:35 PM, said:

How about redoing sets of eight for mechs with bonuses that don't make sense?

Blood Asp is a GREAT example of this issue.
BAS-Prime: This mech is designed around Gauss Rifles, the existing quirks make no sense.
- Missile Cooldown -15% (the mech only has one missile hardpoint and NO ONE loads missiles in it)
- Heavy Laser Heat Generation -5% (this hardly makes an impact over the course of a match)
Improvements:
- Critical Hit -25% (so the Gauss Rifles don't explode when critted out), -37% with skills
- Heavy Laser Heat Generation -10% (5% hardly has an impact, 10% is a HUGE bonus!)

BAS-A: I don't have any problems with this one
BAS-B: I don't have any problems with this one

BAS-C: This mech is built ballistics but the set of eight quirks don't reflect this
- Energy Cooldown -15% (the mech only has ONE energy hardpoint, what's the reason for this quirk?)
- Torso Yaw +5 (the mech already has good yaw, this is pointless)
Improvements:
- Ballistic Cooldown -15% (again, the mech is built around ballistics, this would make a lot more sense)
- Ballistic Velocity +10% (more speed is more better for ballistic mechs)

BAS-D: Reliance on ballistics and energy make the quirks for this mech a bit odd.
- Range +5% (too small a bonus)
- Acceleration Rate +10% (I guess it's good for Assaults so they can move around the field more easily)
- Deceleration Rate +10% (see above)
Improvements:
- Range +10%
- UAC Jam Chance -10% (the trio of UACs in the base design makes this a good choice)
- Energy Heat -10% (heavy lasers and ER Large Lasers generate A LOT of heat)

BAS-RA: I don't have a problem with this mech.

Overall the Blood Asp could become a much better mech from the factory with some changes. I can already see a lot of new designs based around the quirks to keep the game fresh or even introduce a new meta.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alreech, on 13 December 2020 - 12:52 AM, said:

If they don't scout, why call them Scouts?
They are damage dealers that can run away.

To be fair, all mechs are gonna be damage dealers. This isn't Overwatch where we have support that can heal or prevent damage (other than destroying the enemy force which is always the best protection). That said, I call them scouts because in coordinated environments that is what they do. There are several duties of scouts in more coordinated matches whether it be cap watch in conquest, finding isolated mechs while also keeping tabs on the enemy, and waiting for a point in time to get aggressive and collapse on the enemy. In quick play this role is more of a backstabber role: find isolated mechs and/or get the enemy team to squirrel and punished for it.

Alreech, on 13 December 2020 - 12:52 AM, said:

So Support are damage dealers that can't run away.
And can't support other Mechs with indirect LRM fire or AMS / ECM because they don't operate with the main group.
If they don't support, why call them Support?

They support through finding angles to hit enemies from, they are meant to either punish or protect angles the main group can't. In that way they are sort of a middle ground between scouts and assaults. They have more range typically than scouts but often can't work as far away. I honestly just call them support because they can't deal as much damage and in some cases are more psychological than anything (as it takes a minute for them to do serious damage). Back in the days of the Gauss/PPC Kodiak, there was nothing you hated more than to get harassed by a ERPPC poptart Hunchback IIC. Streakboats also qualify here as they are meant to deter scouts. The playstyle is a bit different thus why I call them out as different.

I'm not really gonna address LRMs because that is really a quick play issue because of how uncoordinated it is.

Alreech, on 13 December 2020 - 12:52 AM, said:

And most players buyed that nostalgia.

The meta is connected to the unrestricted Mechlab. If you want to sell Mechs it's not a good idea that you can rebuild their loadout with many other Mechs.
The Hunchback with it's AC 20 was obsolete after PGI introduced the Shadow Hawk that was also capable of carry an AC 20 (and use jump jets).

And also in this case most MWO players liked that unrestriced Mechlab because it made the game much easier.
You don't have to deal with the disadvantages of a certain Chassis (lack of tonnage or jump jets) if you can just use that build in a better Mech.

Not arguing with you here, again I'm a fan of what MW4 did with the mechlab and locking down customization more than we currently have in MWO. MWO has always had serious overlap across mechs (Stalker completely invalidated the Awesome in every way when it came out). That's probably one of my two biggest complaints about the mechlab, the other being we shouldn't have ever introduced variants of the same mech. If was nice in the beginning because it helped overcome the lack of different mechs available then, but now, we have 619 different mechs and that is just.....too many.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 December 2020 - 07:49 AM.

[Brauer]

Alreech, on 13 December 2020 - 12:52 AM, said:

If they don't scout, why call them Scouts?
They are damage dealers that can run away.

All you have to do to scout is put eyeballs on mechs. So a good scout generally has decent mobility and speed. You don't need to invest tonnage in NARC or tag to scout. On Tourmaline a poptart (Veagle, SMN, etc.) jumping up at either of the alpha lances in conquest mode is an excellent scout. Outside of that something small and fast like an MPL Vulcan is a great scout. This idea that scouts can't or shouldn't deal damage is just false.

Quote

And also in this case most MWO players liked that unrestriced Mechlab because it made the game much easier.
You don't have to deal with the disadvantages of a certain Chassis (lack of tonnage or jump jets) if you can just use that build in a better Mech.

A highly restricted mechlab actually makes the metagame much easier because there are only a couple of viable mechs. It doesn't take much effort to identify good mechs if customization is highly limited or to identify the best builds and playstyles for them. Take a look at MW5. The number of decent mechs in that game is vanishingly small because of how restricted the mechlab is. Not to mention many of the mechs that are bad in MW5 are also bad in MWO (see the Centurion).

[Erik Ouzbel]

Update existing mechs with new quirks. Or allow those without quirks some additional benefit. Better consumables, more cbills per match, something that makes people want to spend money on them instead of the newer mechs.

IS Omnis being added in are fine. Maybe the two ones for mechs that are already in-game, the Blackjack and Firestarter can be used for test cases. No new models have to be made unless PGI wants to for those Omnis,

I want to see inner sphere mechs with melee weapons introduced, ie Axman, No-Dachi, or the Cuirass and Cattlemaster once we get to the Dark Age era. Jihad era non melee mechs, the Raptor II, Hauptmann, Titans, Crusaders and Grand Crusaders of various types, Jackrabbits, and Pouncers would be good adds.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 12 December 2020 - 11:52 PM, said:

which Sense have Scouts by Maps who in 1 Minute is the first LOS to the Enemy ? and the most will small maps for fast fights like other Games ...other games have ressources for grinding and daylies , here nothing ,not one element in MWO have a Sense .For the Tactical Players and Unit Players the Maps to small,for teh Fast "Fastfood" players no Grinding or Technical Tree for other chasisies or Ressorces like War Thunder, Star conflict ,you can buy each chassies to each Time,and no one Mode have really Objectives or Missions...tahts the Problem for a Game thats not have a Gamedesigner since 5 Years

Maps may be small, but in 8v8 competitive play they are still large enough to be able to hide your movements. Honestly for the larger maps, most of the map goes unused (forest colony remake I'm looking at you) and if the game mode is conquest you have to be careful of a pure cap strat on those maps.

I used to love the large maps of MW4, but I'm starting to think that I looked at those through rose-tinted glasses. Also what do I have to do to get ghost highway and palace gates from MW4?

Brauer, on 13 December 2020 - 07:49 AM, said:

A highly restricted mechlab actually makes the metagame much easier because there are only a couple of viable mechs. It doesn't take much effort to identify good mechs if customization is highly limited or to identify the best builds and playstyles for them. Take a look at MW5. The number of decent mechs in that game is vanishingly small because of how restricted the mechlab is. Not to mention many of the mechs that are bad in MW5 are also bad in MWO (see the Centurion).

There is a balance that you have to strike, because if you have a completely unrestricted mechlab you end up with just the mechs that have the best combination of tonnage and hitboxes, ie the same as stock/ and super stock.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 December 2020 - 08:02 AM.

[Brauer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 December 2020 - 07:58 AM, said:

There is a balance that you have to strike, because if you have a completely unrestricted mechlab you end up with just the mechs that have the best combination of tonnage and hitboxes, ie the same as stock/ and super stock.

This is actually where the meta ends up no matter what. I actually think MWOs relatively open mechlab and quirk system have the potential to lead to more mechs being viable than with a restricted mechlab. The difference with a more open mechlab like MWO's is that you don't have things like locked engines (omnimechs are an exception I know) or sized-hadpoints keeping some mechs from having viable roles.

From what I've heard of MW4 PVP (I didn't have good enough internet at the time) the meta devolved into 3-4 chassis running a couple of types of weapons. That's a much less diverse meta than what we have in MWO even today where CERPPC and IS MPLs are top-tier.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brauer, on 13 December 2020 - 11:49 AM, said:

From what I've heard of MW4 PVP (I didn't have good enough internet at the time) the meta devolved into 3-4 chassis running a couple of types of weapons. That's a much less diverse meta than what we have in MWO even today where CERPPC and IS MPLs are top-tier.

There's a few reasons for that, none of which are related to the mechlab:

• The game doesn't benefit from the same things that MWO does being a F2P GaaS, meaning no consistent balance updates. Black Knight and Mercenaries was really the only balance updates.
  
• Vengeance was definitely an learning experience, DPS per ton for both ER Large Pulse and ER Large Lasers were equal despite one having to hit multiple times for the other. This is and the catnap glitch was part of the reason Nova Cats were so notorious. They fixed that in Mercenaries though, it was definitely better.
  
• Latency and lack of HSR-esque systems contributed to lack of usage of other weapons, lasers were hitscan PPFLD in that game meaning they were easy to use. Compare this to the Gauss Rifle dominance of closed beta which was pre-HSR.

Mods helped make things much better though mektek struggled with some of their stuff. If they had quirks n crap and were continuously working on it, I would have more faith in them.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 December 2020 - 12:32 PM.

[Slambot]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 December 2020 - 09:57 PM, said:

Rescaling based on how good a mech is is dumb, full stop. How good mechs are is not necessarily related to scale and will often come and go depending on meta shifts. So unless we are scaling every balance change (which again should be unnecessary) it simply shouldn't happen. Seems like a lot of wasted effort especially if they still don't have the tools to really do rescales fast and easy.

How good the mech is was just one consideration. Tell me the firestarter and incubus aren't HUGE for their weight. Many mechs simply have hitbox problems. ie. the Atlas. The feeling is that a re-scale to shrink the mech may help solve some of these problems. I'm suggesting the re-scale as a starting point. A few mechs like the Jenner, really need hitbox adjustments and shrinking them won't solve the problem, but shrinking it a little bit can do nothing but help it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Slambot, on 13 December 2020 - 12:30 PM, said:

How good the mech is was just one consideration. Tell me the firestarter and incubus aren't HUGE for their weight.

They are because they are humanoids, they don't benefit from volume based scaling which is why I argued for surface area based scaling instead but PGI didn't agree. Mechs with "hitbox" problems don't need to be scaled though, they should be quirked as THAT is what quirks are for because scaling won't fix them.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 December 2020 - 12:41 PM.

[I_am_Groot]

Will9761, on 16 November 2020 - 05:53 PM, said:

For me, I'll just say release the Unseens for the Inner Sphere and Clans (along with the Hellion):

Inner Sphere:

Wasp
Mech Type: BattleMech
Year: 2464
Variants: WSP-1A, WSP-1D, WSP-1S, WSP-1W
Tonnage: 20

Stinger
Mech Type: BattleMech
Year: 2479
Variants: STG-3R, STG-3Gb, STG-6L(ECM/Stealth Variant), STG-6S(MASC Variant)
Tonnage: 20

Crusader
Mech Type: BattleMech
Year: 2752
Variants: CRD-3R, CRD-3L(Jumper), CRD-3K, CRD-7L(Jumper/ ECM Stealth Variant)
Tonnage: 65

Longbow
Year: 2480
Variants: LGB-7Q, LGB-7V, LGB-13NAIS(Ballistic, ECM Variant), LGB-12R(Jumper)
Tonnage: 85

Osts family: Ostscout, Oststol and Oststroc

Clans:

Howler (Baboon)
Mech Type: BattleMech
Year: 2871
Variants: Howler - 1, 2(MASC Variant), and 3(“Devil”)
Tonnage: 20

Locust IIC
Mech Type: BattleMech, I.S. Refit
Year: 2832
Variants: Locust IIC - 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6
Tonnage: 25

Hellion
Mech Type: OmniMech
Year: 3059
Variants: Hellion Prime, Alt. Config A, B,C and D
Tonnage: 30

Horned Owl (Peregrine)
Mech Type: BattleMech
Year: 2835
Variants: Horned Owl (Peregrine) - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
Tonnage: 35

Shadow Hawk IIC
Mech Type: Clan BattleMech, I.S. Refit
Year: 2831
Variants: Shadow Hawk IIC - 1, 2, 3 and 4
Tonnage: 45

Phoenix Hawk IIC
Mech Type: Clan BattleMech, I.S. Refit
Year: 2831
Variants: Phoenix Hawk IIC - 1(Ballistic), 2 (Missile), 3(Laser)
Tonnage: 80

I have to agree with these. Along with the Longbow for IS and Urbie IIC for Clans.

[NocturnalBeast]

• New Community-Driven 'Mech (Community input to new 'Mech chassis choice)

Crusader

• New 'Mech Variants

Yes

• Rescale 'Mechs (for fun and role vs volumetric)

Realistic scaling.

• Fix Mech Mobility (Desync)

Yes

• Update Bolt-Ons (Stay Attached)

Make it so they can be blown off.

• Quirks / Set of 8's for Under Performers

Sounds good, but not to ridiculous levels like the durability of some lights.

• Armor Balance for Arm Weapon-Only 'Mechs (Jenner, Jagermech, Rifleman)

Keep it as is, just add arm-specific buffs to the talent tree and make it a choice.

• Weapon Balance Pass

Make clan laser beam duration less insanely long, the amount of power it would take to sustain a laser beam that can burn through armor in the air that long without dissipating would be insane, even for the Fusion Power plants in the Mechs.

• IS Omnimechs / Engine Discussion

Should be same limitations as Clans. Give them good set of eight bonuses, but no extra buffs, they are not supposed to be as good as Clan Omnis.

Edited by Ed Steele, 14 December 2020 - 01:26 AM.

[Carmenblade]

Please, give possibility to sell steam mechs.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ed Steele, on 14 December 2020 - 01:25 AM, said:

• IS Omnimechs / Engine Discussion

Should be same limitations as Clans. Give them good set of eight bonuses, but no extra buffs, they are not supposed to be as good as Clan Omnis.

We aren't going this path. Balance is balance. Don't aim to make mechs automatically inferior. I agree same limitations, but they need to be buffed quirk wise so they are balanced and to make up for their shortcomings.


I feel that getting IS omnis into this game, along with some of the older Clan Omnis (Kingfisher, Turkina), is a good investment because those models will be used again in MW5 when the timeline inevitably gets there.

[VileKnight]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 December 2020 - 10:05 PM, said:

That's kinda my point, it is dumb to have an option in a game that isn't really an option. This is an arena combat game, having "upgrades" or progression that impacts your gameplay is a stupid idea (yes I'm aware even big games do this, like CoD, but it is popular in spite of it). Things like this are part of the reason the NPE is so terrible, there are so many new player traps (stock mechs being downright garbage doesn't help either) because there are essentially many hidden golden rules to follow when building mechs that players have to "learn". Hell some people have been playing this game for years and either don't care or still haven't really learned them (often promoting misinformation on top of that).

*snip*

If I'm being honest, MWO never learned anything from the previous Mechwarrior series games. There is a reason MW4 decided to ditch the classic mech construction rules, and it was for similar reasons to all of the above but that's neither here nor there.

Cut out most of your reply so we don't have a growing wall of text. This clearly has been something you put a lot of rational thought into, and thank you for making this constructive. I simply don't see the need to make standard engines a think for Clan mechs, nor do I see engines as a huge problem for IS mechs. I'll agree to disagree on your concept.

[Flying Blind]

This game encourages mid to long range engagements and punishes close range fighting in almost every circumstance. Energy and ballistic weapons have the ability to hit and cause damage for some distance beyond their optimal range and missiles do not. why? this punishes missiles to an extreme amount, especially SRMs. please, either let missiles have a damage fall off over range like the rest of the weapons or make all weapons not do damage beyond listed optimal range. SRM players need a hand here.


Can we talk about the size of some light mechs? Particularly the Firestarter. It's just too big and too clumsy. Yes, I know it is strong with all the laser points but why do we need to nerf it by making it big and clunky when the Piranha is super small and agile? yes I know the Piranha has little to no armor. The Firestarter's original size was not as small as the P and it had lesser mobility then too especially the torso tilt limit. The mech is dead now, the nerfing was too much. please just make it small like it used to be.

[Lionheart2012]

Take the hardpoint size mechanic from MW5 and adapt it to MWO. This is not to say remove the 72 criticals on the paper doll, but based on the stock loadout, assign small/medium/large hardpoints for the ballistic, missile, and beam weapons in the arms and torso locations. This may reduce the amount of boating, and it may reduce the need for the ghost heat mechanic. Further, it may accentuate the role of the mech and help direct quirks to better define this role.

[Joshua McEvedy]

chaosshade2638, on 09 December 2020 - 02:35 PM, said:

Overall the Blood Asp could become a much better mech from the factory with some changes.

I've been a fan of the Blood Asp ever since Mech Commander 2 and think that it is one of the best looking and most formidable assault mechs in the MechWarrior universe. I own four of the variants and have become increasingly comfortable piloting them this year to the point that they are now my go-to Omnis whenever I need to blow off some steam in QP.

However, PGI's art department (if it still exists) really should go back and rescale (down) those enormous, blocky, oversized forearms and torso-mounted gunpods, since they ruin the Blood Asp's otherwise graceful aesthetic. And yes I'm aware that the original release version in 2018 had the smaller arms and gunpods but some fanboys went crying to Russ on Twitter demanding that they be scaled up to the current size, which he then directed Alex to do. But I think that Alex had it right the first time, or at least closer to the original concept back in the 1990s.

Here's how the PGI release art originally looked:

https://mwomercs.com/blood-asp



But then we got this after the complainers jumped on Russ:



Original discussion here:

https://mwomercs.com...sp-screenshots/

This should be what the concept strives for:



And oh yeah, the MWO Blood Asp's current drunken stagger needs to be fixed.

[Alreech]

Brauer, on 13 December 2020 - 11:49 AM, said:

This is actually where the meta ends up no matter what. I actually think MWOs relatively open mechlab and quirk system have the potential to lead to more mechs being viable than with a restricted mechlab. The difference with a more open mechlab like MWO's is that you don't have things like locked engines (omnimechs are an exception I know) or sized-hadpoints keeping some mechs from having viable roles.

So what is the viable role of the Awesome 8Q compared to the Stalker?
Most of the Stalkers can mount the same number and types of Energy Weapons and have better hard point placement.

PGI invited Ghost Heat to prevent Stalkers with 3, 4, 5 or 6 PPCs / Large Laser instead of restricting most of the Energy Hardpoints to Medium Weapons (selected from Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, ER-Medium Laser, Ligh PPC, Flamer, TAG and all Small Lasers).

Putting a lots of Quirks into the Awesome to make it viable as 3 PPC Mech (even an exception for the Ghost Heat) may work or not, but achives in the best case the same effect a size restriction would have.
And at the moment the Stalker has still the better Hardpoints and the option to run a missle build, making it a better Mech in any role than the Awesome despite the HSL Quirk.

Same for the "bad" Centurion.
It's a bad Mech, especially because you can put a Gauss Rifle, an AC 10 or AC 20 in almost any other IS Medium Mech with better hit boxes and ballistic Hardpoints. Quirks don't change that.

Make the Awesome one of the few Assault Mechs what is able to carry 3 or 4 "Large" Energy Weapons and it would be an unique Mech with a specific role.
Make the Centurion one of the few Medium Mechs what is able to carry a "Huge" Weapon like a Gauss Rifle, an AC 10 or AC 20 and it would be an unique Mech with a specific role.
Structure & Armor Quirks may be still needed for stuff like bad hitboxes or to make stock loadout usefull, but on a much lower level because those unique roles prevent competition with other, "better" Mechs.

And a more restricted Mech Lab doesn't mean to use the same rules as the MW 5 Mechlab.
Engine Switching or Upgrading to XL for non-Omni Mechs would be fine.

Adding a 4th size Class like Huge for weapons like the AC20, Gauss Rifle, LRM 20, MRM 40 or Heavy PPC may be needed for balancing reasons.
Also for the balancing reasons some undergunned Mechs may need additional Hardpoints, or some Hardpoints with small or medium weapons in stock loudout may allow bigger weapons.

Model for the number / size of the Hardpoints allowed per Class and Role could be the "best" stock loadouts.
The Warkhaw Prime (Class: Assault, Role: long range Energy build) comes with 4 large Energy Weapons (ER-PPCs), so the Awesome 8Q (Class: Assault, Role: long range Energy build) should be also able to mount 4 large Energy Weapons.

Edited by Alreech, 16 December 2020 - 10:30 AM.

[Forgeling]

Speaking of Hardpoints; how has THIS not been fixed yet?
https://mwomercs.com...-that-shadowcat

Just have the first weapon added go into the most favourable spot and go down from there.

Edited by Forgeling, 16 December 2020 - 01:14 PM.

[Brauer]

Alreech, on 16 December 2020 - 10:28 AM, said:

So what is the viable role of the Awesome 8Q compared to the Stalker?
Most of the Stalkers can mount the same number and types of Energy Weapons and have better hard point placement.

PGI invited Ghost Heat to prevent Stalkers with 3, 4, 5 or 6 PPCs / Large Laser instead of restricting most of the Energy Hardpoints to Medium Weapons (selected from Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, ER-Medium Laser, Ligh PPC, Flamer, TAG and all Small Lasers).

Putting a lots of Quirks into the Awesome to make it viable as 3 PPC Mech (even an exception for the Ghost Heat) may work or not, but achives in the best case the same effect a size restriction would have.
And at the moment the Stalker has still the better Hardpoints and the option to run a missle build, making it a better Mech in any role than the Awesome despite the HSL Quirk.

Same for the "bad" Centurion.
It's a bad Mech, especially because you can put a Gauss Rifle, an AC 10 or AC 20 in almost any other IS Medium Mech with better hit boxes and ballistic Hardpoints. Quirks don't change that.

Make the Awesome one of the few Assault Mechs what is able to carry 3 or 4 "Large" Energy Weapons and it would be an unique Mech with a specific role.
Make the Centurion one of the few Medium Mechs what is able to carry a "Huge" Weapon like a Gauss Rifle, an AC 10 or AC 20 and it would be an unique Mech with a specific role.
Structure & Armor Quirks may be still needed for stuff like bad hitboxes or to make stock loadout usefull, but on a much lower level because those unique roles prevent competition with other, "better" Mechs.

And a more restricted Mech Lab doesn't mean to use the same rules as the MW 5 Mechlab.
Engine Switching or Upgrading to XL for non-Omni Mechs would be fine.

Adding a 4th size Class like Huge for weapons like the AC20, Gauss Rifle, LRM 20, MRM 40 or Heavy PPC may be needed for balancing reasons.
Also for the balancing reasons some undergunned Mechs may need additional Hardpoints, or some Hardpoints with small or medium weapons in stock loudout may allow bigger weapons.

Model for the number / size of the Hardpoints allowed per Class and Role could be the "best" stock loadouts.
The Warkhaw Prime (Class: Assault, Role: long range Energy build) comes with 4 large Energy Weapons (ER-PPCs), so the Awesome 8Q (Class: Assault, Role: long range Energy build) should be also able to mount 4 large Energy Weapons.

The thing with sized hardpoints is it just restricts the loadouts available to mechs and further cements mechs with good sets of hardpoints as the top picks. So there's no way to make a bunch of mechs decent with sized hardpoints because they just end up with potential loadouts that are garbage, whereas other mechs that get hardpoints that align with good loadouts get to dominate.

Sized-hardpoints do nothing to fix terrible hitboxes or horrible mixed weapon-type loadouts dictated by a mech's original design. So sized-hardpoints don't save the AWS or the Centurion. Being one of the few mediums to carry a big ballistic would not save the Centurion from being bad. You'd still have a bunch of medium mechs boating lasers and srms, which are better weapons for mediums.

If anything sized-hardpoints just further widen the gulf between terribad mechs and good mechs.

Edited by Brauer, 16 December 2020 - 07:01 PM.