185 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Let’s start by laying out two points that need to be remembered throughout this thread, and ideally every other, shall we?

1.) The Clan XL Engine, in its current implementation, is the single largest factor driving Clan dominance.
Despite what a few of the most hardliner “KILL ALL CLANNERZ NYEOW” folks think, I understand this quite well. Clan ‘Mechs are all rather phenomenally durable for their size/speed, suffering negligible drawbacks in exchange for all of the benefits of an XL engine. Probably the easiest way to bring that 90% win rate down is to do something about the Clan’s XL engine. There is, however, a second point that must be remembered by anyone attempting to find a serious, realistic answer to this issue.

2.) The Clan technology base does not include STD engines, nor can Clan ‘Mechs do a single damn thing to mitigate the traditional “YOU DIE NOW” penalties of an Inner Sphere XL Engine.
People have suggested many plans to ‘fix’ the Clan XL engine, which all tend to amount to the same thing – reinstating the death-on-shoulder-blowout penalty of an XL engine in the Clans. These plans are all justified with the same phrase, which would be: “You know what happens to an Inner Sphere XL engine that loses a shoulder? IT DIES.” They wish to ensure that, while a Clan ‘Mech does not outright die when it loses a shoulder, it is also thereafter unable to actually contribute to the match in any meaningful manner and is effectively dead.

A middle ground must be found between these points. Clan ‘Mechs can’t be permitted to get off scot-free for losing a shoulder (beyond, you know…losing the shoulder, its associated arm, and all equipment therein), but nor can the ‘Mech be a mission-kill when it loses a shoulder. If you intend to ruin the ‘Mech completely once it loses an ST, you may as well just kill it off entirely and let the pilot find a new match.

To that end, I had an idea I wanted to run by people, see if maybe this would be a simple, easily implemented option that would degrade a Clan ‘Mech’s performance across the board without crippling it entirely. And that would be…:

A Clan ‘Mech that loses a shoulder has all of its unlocked pilot efficiencies disabled, including lockdown/lockout of its master module slot if it has one.

Yes yes, I know. “But 1453-R! This doesn’t do anything to Clan ‘Mechs piloted by people who haven’t unlocked any efficiencies yet!” News flash, Bubba: if they don’t have any efficiencies unlocked they’re already half-screwed to start with – but only half screwed. This would be a way to impact most all of a ‘Mech’s combat parameters in a definitively negative way, but without removing it from the match entirely. A mastered ‘Mech would lose the effect of one of its ‘Mech modules, ten percent off its top speed, and a significant amount of heat cap, dissipation, turn and twist, accel and decal, the works, but they would still be able to fight. They wouldn’t be acting like a legged ‘Mech with five heat sinks left, as some people have stated should be the case. They’d definitely be hit and hurt, but they wouldn’t be completely impotent.

This also has the (assumed) benefit of being stupidly easy for Piranha to implement. Assuming their code can handle it, it would be simplicity itself to simply flag the efficiencies as being “UNLOCKED: FALSE” upon the loss of a shoulder. Bam: ‘Mech impacted. No muss, no fuss, no need for additional weirdass systems or clunky bot-ons (as fond as I know the balance team is of weirdass systems and clunky bolt-ons)…just flip a switch and turn off all your efficiency bonuses if you’re shoulder’d.

Thoughts/opinions? Anyone else have any notions for ways to degrade a shoulder-blown Clan XL without rendering it a complete mission kill?

[Zyllos]

That seems odd to lose the unlocks and stuff.

Personally, take a page from the Battletech rules, slightly reduced speed (and torso twist speed) along with a few destroyed heatsinks. That is good enough.

[process]

Unlocks seem arbitrary. Losing some engine-related stat makes more sense to me; I would say something like -15% to top speed and leave it at that.

[Lefty Lucy]

Zyllos, on 14 August 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

That seems odd to lose the unlocks and stuff.

Personally, take a page from the Battletech rules, slightly reduced speed (and torso twist speed) along with a few destroyed heatsinks. That is good enough.

How is that taking a page from BT rules? Under BT rules it generates 10 heat per turn, or 1 heat per second, if you have two engine crits. Mechs losing a ST are not slower at all, but of course BT rules give very mech the exact same torso twist capability regardless, without delving into optional rules such as mech quirks, of course.

[1453 R]

The issue is that the people pushing for "engine-related losses" aren't really looking for survivable hits. I've seen 50% speed cuts, as well as halving heat dissipation/capacity, bandied about more than once, always justified with that wonderful "You know what happens to an IS XL..." excuse.

I figured that losing unlocks, while a little off-kilter from a mental standpoint, is (hopefully) super-easy to do in the code base and would be just the sort of low-hanging fruit solution PGI likes to shoot for. If we can get behind one of those, we might be able to head the mission-kill folks off at the pass and keep Clan pilots from just up and quitting the game whenever they lose a shoulder.

[Lefty Lucy]

1453 R, on 14 August 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

The issue is that the people pushing for "engine-related losses" aren't really looking for survivable hits. I've seen 50% speed cuts, as well as halving heat dissipation/capacity, bandied about more than once, always justified with that wonderful "You know what happens to an IS XL..." excuse.

I figured that losing unlocks, while a little off-kilter from a mental standpoint, is (hopefully) super-easy to do in the code base and would be just the sort of low-hanging fruit solution PGI likes to shoot for. If we can get behind one of those, we might be able to head the mission-kill folks off at the pass and keep Clan pilots from just up and quitting the game whenever they lose a shoulder.

Well, because if PGI seriously wants to balance Clan and IS mechs without nerfing all of the Clan weapons into the ground then having serious drawbacks to losing a ST is going to have to happen.

[Zyllos]

Lefty Lucy, on 14 August 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

How is that taking a page from BT rules? Under BT rules it generates 10 heat per turn, or 1 heat per second, if you have two engine crits. Mechs losing a ST are not slower at all, but of course BT rules give very mech the exact same torso twist capability regardless, without delving into optional rules such as mech quirks, of course.

Doesn't every engine critical basically count as 3 destroyed single heatsinks (basically, +3 heat per turn)?

[Lefty Lucy]

Zyllos, on 14 August 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

Doesn't every engine critical basically count as 3 destroyed single heatsinks (basically, +3 heat per turn)?

5

[1453 R]

Lefty Lucy, on 14 August 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Well, because if PGI seriously wants to balance Clan and IS mechs without nerfing all of the Clan weapons into the ground then having serious drawbacks to losing a ST is going to have to happen.

I maintain that there's 'serious' and there's 'Dead by a different name'. The latter is more frustrating that just being outright dead, since Outright Dead can just quit and find a new match if they're bored but Effectively Dead has no such luxury despite being of the same value to his team as Outright Dead. The weapons are going to get zonked, that's a foregone conclusion after seeing what the Nerfinator's plans were for the C-ERLL. I'm hoping that we can get moderate weapon-zonking and moderate CXL penalties together, rather than half-immortal Clan 'Mechs with a plethora of completely garbage weapons. It's one of the reasons I'm trying to see if there are some other notions for quick-n-dirty XL penalties out there, or if folks could get behind this one.

[Funky Bacon]

You are basically losing a small chunk of your engine and is only one engine crit away from destruction. It would make sense to have some sort of drawback of losing a side torso. The real question is what and how to balance it without making it too severe or too pointless.

[1453 R]

...which is the question I have posited a potential answer to for discussion, Bacon

I don't disagree, but saying "There is a need for this thing" isn't quite the same as figuring out what the thing is and how to go about implementing it. Any notions?

Edited by 1453 R, 14 August 2014 - 04:13 PM.

[Nauht]

Sure... if you give clans the ability to swap out engines then.

So clan lights will be able to actually go fast, Summoners can get more weapon space and heavier mechs can choose what engine size to fit them.

[headbasher]

i dunno not sure either side would be happy with this .

[1453 R]

headbasher, on 14 August 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

i dunno not sure either side would be happy with this .

Sounds like a perfect compromise to me.

[Sug]

1453 R, on 14 August 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

A Clan ‘Mech that loses a shoulder has all of its unlocked pilot efficiencies disabled, including lockdown/lockout of its master module slot if it has one.

[redacted]

So incredibly bad. Just super impressive at this stage of the game really. I didn't think the community had anything left after 3 years.

If anything give it the heat penalty an engine is supposed to get via TT rules.


Edit: Posted and came back. Honestly that is one of the worst ideas ever. You should ask a mod to delete this thread for you. [redacted]

Edit: It's an honor to have the worst idea ever. You had some stiff competition this year from:

LRMs should have a toggle for long and short range use

-DasSibby


Buff the Awesome by increasing the heat capacity and dissipation of single heat sinks.

-Kyrs


Control the meta weapons by bringing back reload costs but make them increase or decrease in price based on how many people are using those weapons.

-Hammur


Narc is very OP. The max trasmission range of the beacon should be changed to 500m.

-ManDaisy




Anyone watch The League? We need a Sacko/Ruxin for the forums. Maybe call it the Roadbeer or the Heffey.

Edited by Catalina Steiner, 18 August 2014 - 03:35 AM.

[1453 R]

I don't suppose you'd be willing to explain why, in between casting all sorts of aspersions on my character here, Sug? Or are we just going to do the Internet troll thing instead of contribute to the discussion?

[Scratx]

Penalties for losing a cXL's side will have to happen sooner or later. But let's make it a penalty that makes sense?

Heat is the most obvious one, and it screws hard with clan mechs. An alternate, or in combination, penalty on torso twist also makes sense. Most everything else is harder to justify.

[Alistair Winter]

I honestly don't think XL engines are the big issue here. First, PGI needs to decide whether they want Omnimechs to be better than Battlemechs, and then they need to decide whether to balance via numbers, tonnage or equipment. If they go with equipment, then they need to look at weapons, engines, armour values, the whole nine yards. Not just one single element.

Sug, on 14 August 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

[/size]

[redacted]

So incredibly bad. Just super impressive at this stage of the game really. I didn't think the community had anything left after 3 years.

If anything give it the heat penalty an engine is supposed to get via TT rules.


Edit: Posted and came back. Honestly that is one of the worst ideas ever. You should ask a mod to delete this thread for you. [redacted]

ROFL.

Edited by Catalina Steiner, 18 August 2014 - 03:35 AM.

[1453 R]

*Sigh*

You folks really so all-fired eager for the people who want Clan 'Mechs sans a side torso to act like legged 'Mechs with five heat sinks left, or worse, to be the only ones presenting ideas here?

Ask any of the ultracomps everybody's always turning to for this crap. They're all saying that the CXL's going to be hit, and badly. Let's see if we can't find a way to try and control the damage, shall we? As opposed to harping on each other?

[Sug]

1453 R, on 14 August 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

I don't suppose you'd be willing to explain why, in between casting all sorts of aspersions on my character here, Sug? Or are we just going to do the Internet troll thing instead of contribute to the discussion?

Pfff. Nothing was said about your character. Honestly I'm not trying to troll or be mean. I'm not saying you're dumb, just your idea. It's a really bad idea. It's so bad it put a smile on my face and I gave it a round of applause because I though you were joking.

It's a nonsensical solution to an ill conceived notion of a problem that barely exists. It's beautiful in a way. They should have sent a poet.