170 replies to this topic

[GrimRiver]

It's the main reason why I never take an XL in anything bigger then a light(except the cicada).

I had a few matches where 60-80% of my team was running XL's and died super fast and early into match because they lost their ST and I was 1 or 3 that was left alive because of the lack of XL in our mechs.

Dying JUST from a ST loss is super annoying and dumb.

I wish IS XL's work like clan battlemech XL's, a loss of 1 ST will result in a loss of speed, accel and decel.

If IS XL's worked like clan XL's I believe STD engines will still be the go to for zombie builds.

[TKSax]

The6thMessenger, on 23 August 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

Yeah, but it doesn't compensate enough.


Sure, but it's still relatively fair to adjust the XL IS engine, without unbalancing the game. So far it's just what you want, flavor, but what about what everyone else wants?

Who is everone, it really does not matter what you or I think it matters what PGI Thinks, and XL engines have been like this sine the game was introduced, and they have declined to change in 4 years.

The6thMessenger, on 23 August 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

Okay, cool. But you do know that one game, and one player does not represent what the rest can't or cannot do right?

Besides, that's a grasshopper, not even a King-Crab, Assaults are waaaaaay vulnerable because of their inherent slowness, especially with King-Crabs large body. The next game is an Orion. The Warhammer is using STD engine, else it should have died with only one torso. Shown in 8:53.

Correct, if IS is Hard mode, should he have not walked all over me in is Clan Mech? The rest of the matches don't matter since I was showing my Hard mode IS XL mech vs Clan Mech and won. However, I was in OrionIIC the second match which is of course a clan mech. The last match deviated from my usual XL Dual gauss because it was 1v1 Match, and I knew he would be shooting for my side torso. Solo Que, XL Warhammer 6R with Dual Gauss 4 ML laser all day every day.

As far as King Crab, you can't balance the whole game around a King Crab, so changing XL engines just so King crabs can run them safer is not the best reason. Especially when the Majority of Clan Mechs have not choice but to run an XL Engine. The King Crab is a sub-par assault mech in the game it could use some help, probably some structure quirks

The6thMessenger, on 23 August 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

The thing is that, you don't. What about other people? They play too.

Your not everyone either what people like me and others who are ok with as is? But really as I said above what you and I think means nothing, PGI has been pretty clear that they have no intention to change how XL Engines work in MWO.

You can Run an XL in a King Crab Successfully, Sader does it, I have done it, it takes good awareness and positioning as well as smart Torso twisting but it can be done.

GrimRiver, on 23 August 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

If IS XL's worked like clan XL's I believe STD engines will still be the go to for zombie builds.

I doubt it, Most people would just run Deadside builds like I like to do in Hellbringers, HBK-IIC's and such. Not too many Viable Zombie Builds these days.

Edited by TKSax, 23 August 2016 - 09:39 AM.

[Steve Pryde]

Make IS xl engines the same and then u can balance IS vs clans properly.

[Y E O N N E]

El Bandito, on 23 August 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

That said, PGI really needs to balance IS XL and CLan XL 1 to 1. Clan XL is part of a the reason why Clan mechs are so successful in the leaderboards.

I think the smaller DHS, better weapons, and generally increased number of hard points have a couple orders of magnitude greater impact on Cross-tech balance. You give me smaller DHS and Clan weapons for my isXL Blackjack, and I'll show you a 'Mech that is OP as hell even without quirks.

[TKSax]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

I think the smaller DHS, better weapons, and generally increased number of hard points have a couple orders of magnitude greater impact on Cross-tech balance. You give me smaller DHS and Clan weapons for my isXL Blackjack, and I'll show you a 'Mech that is OP as hell even without quirks.

Bah, I would ranter not see mixed tech, I enjoy the difference between the factions. There is so little depth to the game no mixed tech at least adds some interest.

Edited by TKSax, 23 August 2016 - 10:15 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

TKSax, on 23 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Bah, I would ranter not see mixed tech, I enjoy the difference between the factions. There is so little depth to the game no mixed tech at least adds some interest.

I don't disagree and it is for the same reason I prefer to keep the isXL explodey, it was just an example to make a point. We see that a Jenner with a cXL is not any harder to kill than a Jenner with an isXL. Ditto Highlander, Orion, Hunchback. If you shoved IS weapons and DHS into all of them, they would be inferior to their IS counterparts because they lack the weapon quirks.

Ergo, it isn't the engine...it is the guns and how many of them you can bring. I would point out that there is currently no IS equivalent to the Nova in this game. Think about it.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 23 August 2016 - 10:24 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

enner with a cXL is not any harder to kill than a Jenner with an isXL.

Depends, are we talking Oxide or the default ones? The Oxide is about as sturdy as the cXL of the Jenner IIC thanks to structure quirks.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 10:37 AM, said:

Depends, are we talking Oxide or the default ones? The Oxide is about as sturdy as the cXL of the Jenner IIC thanks to structure quirks.

Realistically? They both take about the same effort to kill. One 30 point hit will cripple any Jenner anywhere on the torso. It wasn't the structure that made the Oxide so good as much as it was the combination of structure with weapons that can do the same to targets twice its weight in the same time frame what they are going to do to it at that particular range. An Oxide with a cXL and vanilla IS weapons would still be hot garbage. Ditto a Jenner F. Or K. Or D.

More nuanced take? If you want to believe the engine behavior is so important, here, then structure quirks sort of prove that the fragility can be rendered entirely irrelevant in application with a combination of hit-point bonus and pilot input, just like the lack of hit-point bonus for the Clans is irrelevant by a combination of more durable engine and...pilot skill.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

Realistically? They both take about the same effort to kill.

I'm going to disagree on this one, the Jenner IIC despite its terrible hitboxes (it is worse than the IS Jenner imo) is still more survivable than the IS Jenner outside the Oxide. I didn't say the Oxide's structure was all it had going for it, just that survivability wise, it is what keeps it inline with the Jenner IIC.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

More nuanced take? If you want to believe the engine behavior is so important, here, then structure quirks sort of prove that the fragility can be rendered entirely irrelevant in application with a combination of hit-point bonus and pilot input, just like the lack of hit-point bonus for the Clans is irrelevant by a combination of more durable engine and...pilot skill.

I will agree with this.



The question would then be how to make STD engines worthwhile, one way would be to make agility purely based on weight rather than speed like it currently is but PGI doesn't seem willing to budge on that one.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 11:14 AM.

[AnTi90d]

Countess, on 23 August 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

I've heard in the lore that XL does not mean you're dead with one side torso gone, but that the engine is vulnerable once that happens. If clans don't die from 1 side torso gone, why us?

To blow an engine and disable a mech, you have to destroy 3 of its critical slots.

Clan XLs have two crit slots in each ST, so they survive the armor and structure loss of a ST.. but will still die if both ST are gone. (No clan zombies.)

LFE (light fusion engine) behaves the same as Clan XL engines, with two crit slots in each ST. They weigh more, though, so they aren't 100% on par with them.

IS XLs have three crit slots in each ST. When their ST armor is gone, destroying their ST structure destroys the three engine critical slots contained within = boom to the mech.

I would absolutely love LFEs to be put into the game. We already have out-of-timeline variants and out of timeline chassis (incoming) so, PGI could make a whole lot of people happy by slowly introducing new tech.. and LFEs don't even require balancing (aside from possibly reducing some IS ST structure buffs.)

http://www.sarna.net..._Engine_-_Light

Hell, even if they cost 2x an XL engine, I'd still be thrilled to have them in the game.

..while we're on the subject.. XXL engines would also be cool to have.. even if only a few light mechs and suicidal heavies made use of them.. (they have six critical slots per ST.)

http://www.sarna.net...on_Engine_-_XXL

Edited by AnTi90d, 23 August 2016 - 11:17 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

AnTi90d, on 23 August 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

out of timeline chassis (incoming) so

What chassis is that exactly, all have variants made within the limit of 3052?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 11:21 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

I'm going to disagree on this one, the Jenner IIC despite its terrible hitboxes (it is worse than the IS Jenner imo) is still more survivable than the IS Jenner outside the Oxide. I didn't say the Oxide's structure was all it had going for it, just that survivability wise, it is what keeps it inline with the Jenner IIC.

The reason I disagree with you here is because the only way a IIC Jenner missing a side torso remains a threat is when everybody else drops the ball, making this not a function of the Jenner 's goodness.

That, and the fact that nobody takes then IIC anymore outside the Tourney build because it is that bad. The Jenner F with MedLas is a better player on account of agility and burn duration quirks.

Quote

I will agree with this.



The question would then be how to make STD engines worthwhile, one way would be to make agility purely based on weight rather than speed like it currently is but PGI doesn't seem willing to budge on that one.

XL should only grant durability to the sides.

STD should grant durability to all three parts, and provide a cooling bonus. The issue with STD engines is that, if you want solid firepower, you must be slow and overly hot. To make it more than a niche option only taken when a given 'Mech is pigeon-holed into it, it needs to be straight durable enough that it offesets the damage mitigation you lose from going slower and the cooling you lose by being heavier.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

The reason I disagree with you here is because the only way a IIC Jenner missing a side torso remains a threat is when everybody else drops the ball, making this not a function of the Jenner 's goodness.

Depends on the situation, I've seen lights skate away at range missing half of their mech, they can still be a factor and more potent than a dead IS Jenner.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

That, and the fact that nobody takes then IIC anymore outside the Tourney build because it is that bad. The Jenner F with MedLas is a better player on account of agility and burn duration quirks.

It also lacks the firepower or range that the 6 ERML Jenner IIC can still run with, or the low heat punch of the 6 cSPLs.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

XL should only grant durability to the sides.

I'm assuming enough to make it so that it isn't easier to kill through a side than the CT?

[AnTi90d]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

What chassis is that exactly, all have variants made within the limit of 3052?

The Marauder IIC's variants are an abomination and should not exist in this game.. unless we're going to move up the timeline and introduce the late50s/early60s weapons that most models come with.

The Clans developed it and fielded it.. but only the single, base variant. No Mad IIC variants were produced until 3059.

Quote

It is to the credit of its original engineers that no production variants of the Marauder IIC appeared until a wellspring of new technology emerged in the 3050s and '60s, with Clan Star Adder introducing a visually refreshed model carrying the then-newly developed Heavy Lasers...

Quote

Clan Star Adder developed the family of Heavy Lasers in 3059..

PGI says it's still 3051.

https://mwomercs.com/clock

Edited by AnTi90d, 23 August 2016 - 11:49 AM.

[Deathlike]

I almost think ideas about increasing structure through using an IS XL engine (more for STD engines of course) would probably be the best thing to do.

Ideally, it would be a universal buff value, but I feel some exceptions will have to made on a chassis to chassis basis (since rescaling them would be viewed as a hassle to PGI).

I feel this concept will be Lostech™ either way to PGI.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

Depends on the situation, I've seen lights skate away at range missing half of their mech, they can still be a factor and more potent than a dead IS Jenner.

If everybody else drops the ball...

Quote

It also lacks the firepower or range that the 6 ERML Jenner IIC can still run with, or the low heat punch of the 6 cSPLs.

The cERMLs encourage you to get shot in the face by the now-prevalent PPFLD. The cSPLs are slightly too close-range for the size and sluggishness of the Jenner IIC.

The IIC might win a duel, but overall battlefield application is greatly diminished.

Quote

I'm assuming enough to make it so that it isn't easier to kill through a side than the CT?

That's the general idea, yes. Geometry will have to be factored in some way. A 'Mech - specific scalar modifier value as a quirk should do the trick.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

If everybody else drops the ball...

Has nothing to do with dropping the ball and everything to do with the Jenner skating away before weapons recharge after getting caught by a glancing blow.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

The cERMLs encourage you to get shot in the face by the now-prevalent PPFLD.

The IIC might win a duel, but overall battlefield application is greatly diminished.

You shouldn't be hitting from an angle where you can get shot in the first place, which is why lights spend so much time not doing anything running around at a safe enough distance. Either way, both lights are less useful because of the rescale making them much easier to hit.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

That's the general idea, yes. Geometry will have to be factored in some way. A 'Mech - specific scalar modifier value as a quirk should do the trick.

Geometry really shouldn't need to be factored in to a base piece of equipment imo.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 12:01 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

AnTi90d, on 23 August 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

The Clans developed it and fielded it.. but only the single, base variant. No Mad IIC variants were produced until 3059.

Nevermind, misread what you were saying.

Alright, so here is how they have worked so far, if the base variant is pre-3051 and any future variants can be made with in-timeline tech, then it gets added because there wasn't any specific tech related reason why that variant could've existed prior to that. That is the reason the Kodiak has 5 variants despite only one being in the timeline, it isn't really that much of a problem to even remotely be an "abomination" regardless of whatever the fluff says.

I get the desire for new tech, because we do need it, but to the point where you are going on about it like this? It's ridiculous.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 12:06 PM.

[Chuck Jager]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

I think the smaller DHS, better weapons, and generally increased number of hard points have a couple orders of magnitude greater impact on Cross-tech balance. You give me smaller DHS and Clan weapons for my isXL Blackjack, and I'll show you a 'Mech that is OP as hell even without quirks.

I agree here, but I also hear plenty of whining when our clan FW faces other good IS IS teams.

With laser durations and structure quirks plus players who choose to run the most optimal builds the balance is dead on.

In slower long range short bus pug matches the clan has the advantage. But that is really more like trying to put a supercharged 4wd in a Yugo with many IS mechs. But most balancing in all games does not hit the poor to bad levels. It is usually the players responsibility to stay away from it.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Nevermind, misread what you were saying.

Alright, so here is how they have worked so far, if the base variant is pre-3051 and any future variants can be made with in-timeline tech, then it gets added because there wasn't any specific tech related reason why that variant could've existed prior to that. That is the reason the Kodiak has 5 variants despite only one being in the timeline, it isn't really that much of a problem to even remotely be an "abomination" regardless of whatever the fluff says.

I get the desire for new tech, because we do need it, but to the point where you are going on about it like this? It's ridiculous.

For the most part, PGI is just throwing stuff at the wall and putting in some of their own variants... just to sell another mechpack. Balance be damned though, but whatever.

Timeline outside of not designing new weapons (which would just be mods of existing ones - based on PGI's track record) is generally irrelevant.