Jump to content

Clan Xl Downsides


12 replies to this topic

Poll: Clan XL tweaks (28 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Clan XLs suffer penalties when they lose a side torso?

  1. Yes. (16 votes [61.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 61.54%

  2. No. (10 votes [38.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  3. I don't care. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:32 AM

In TT (oh noes, I referenced TT!), engines follow a simple rule. They fail after losing 3 or more critical slots. Every slot they lose imposes a penalty on heat (5 heat with one hit, 10 with two hits).

XL engines have 3 slots in each side torso, making them far more vulnerable to engine hits than a STD engine. This carries over to MWO, as destroying a side torso blows out the XL, even though individual engine critical hits don't happen.

The advantage that the Clans get with cXLs, aside from saving on space, is that they can survive losing two critical slots, or in other words they can lose a side torso without losing their engine.

However, in MWO, because there are no engine critical damage effects tracked individually, cXLs only suffer when both side torso are destroyed (putting the total lost critical slots at 4). Throw in the wide-spread perception of overall Clan superiority (the oft-referenced 90% CvIS win rate, for instance), and alternatives to simply nerfing Clan weapons into oblivion become more and more important. The question, then, is whether or not PGI should implement some kind of penalty when a Clan mech loses its first side torso. They certainly suffer in TT with +10 heat generation (basically it cancels out 5 cDHS).

So here are a few proposed penalties:

1 - Lose 10 effective heat sinks. Since pretty much every Clan mech ever uses cDHS, that'd be the same as losing 5 cDHS from the 10 that come inside the engine.

2 - Increase heat generation. This is similar to, but slightly different from, [1] above. Rather than losing heat dissipation, they'd instead gain heat generation. This could have some subtle effects on balance.

3 - A different kind of penalty would be to reduce the throttle output of the mech. This could be done in several ways, from shaving off a % of max throttle output, to capping the throttle setting at a lower level (similar in kind, if not necessarily in degree, to legging).

4 - The most unique kind of penalty would be to reduce the effective engine rating of the mech. Since engine rating influences everything from throttle range to turn and twist rates, this could be a very impactful penalty. Depending on the engine in question, it could even lose the mech a DHS or two (depending on the penalty) if it drops below a 250 rating.

Some of these could be combined to make for a stronger penalty, and of course the numbers could easily be tweaked to achieve a more perfect level of balance.

Naturally there are many other options that I haven't thought of, so if you have another idea please vote Other and reply with your alternative solution in your post.

Edited by Levi Porphyrogenitus, 17 August 2014 - 12:35 PM.


#2 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:49 AM

Why not just enable engine crits and be done with it?

Just out of curiousity. I was able to destroy a Warhawk the other day on tabletop without destroying any side torsos at all due to repeated engine crits after wearing down the armor.

And I got my Archer killed when two ECM Hunchabck 4SPs beat the living crap out of it. It even went nuclear after a catastrophic engine failure when one Hunchback's foot went through the rear CT and crit the engine, killing one Hunchback and causing the other one to require 5 months of repairs with a God Mode Scotty (level 2 as the first God Mode Scotty wasn't good enough) trying to restore the mech into a standard 4SP, teleporting the mech into the factory, rebuilding it from the ground up as scrap on a completely new skeleton/structure, and even then it wasn't fully functional.

So. Engine Crits. Just do that and be done with it.

Besides most Clan mechs lose 5 DHS or more just by losing a side torso already, look at the Warhawk.

Or any serious energy boat, which would have 5 or more DHS in either side torso and arms.

#3 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:09 AM

I'd love to see ancillary critical effects like engine crits, actuator crits, and the like. However, until that happens, we are stuck with the current system. The proposal here is to give cXLs a close approximation to their TT downside without fundamentally changing the underlying system. An engine critical system (or better, a full critical hit system) would almost certainly require a lot more work to implement, and would have far reaching consequences to the overall game system.

#4 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:13 AM

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 17 August 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

I'd love to see ancillary critical effects like engine crits, actuator crits, and the like.


Crit system works.
Posted Image

Just change the engine from health to a slot system and bam (otherwise you can kill a Clan XL from the one side torso if it goes by health). Or separate the engine into 3 sections (already done) and give each section its own health, but have the total combined so that when the total goes down by X, it's dead.

At last news, the engine has 15 HP.
AC/20 has 18.
Typical ammo, heatsinks, other weapons have 10 HP.

It is FAR less work than the proposals thus far, and in closed beta actuators did take critical hits and had effects. For example a damaged leg actuator made it so that you had to repeatedly correct your course (as you'd drift in the direction of the damaged leg). A damaged lower arm actuator offset the aim of the weapon in that arm horizontally so it'd never converge correctly onto the crosshair. A damaged upper actuator would do the same thing but vertically.

So this stuff WAS in the game already but taken out ("ZOMG this doesn't work. That's broken.") Basically a lot of players who had no idea what was going on because it wasn't explained kept reporting it as bugs.

Another good example of stuff that used to be in the game was a true heat penalty. Remaining above 80% heat for a second would cause 1 point of damage to one equipment, weapon or ammo. So you hit 80% and stay there for 3 seconds. AC/20 Ammo took 1 damage. AC/20 took 1 damage. Heatsink took 1 damage. And sooner or later you'd lose something. Also taken out (single heatsinks would leave you above 80% for quite a while due to the rising threshold system... 20 SHS is supposed to take 15 seconds to cool you off. With the rising threshold, it took over 26 seconds to cool you to zero for 20 SHS).

Edited by Koniving, 17 August 2014 - 11:18 AM.


#5 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:37 AM

View PostKoniving, on 17 August 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:


Crit system works.
Posted Image

Just change the engine from health to a slot system and bam (otherwise you can kill a Clan XL from the one side torso if it goes by health). Or separate the engine into 3 sections (already done) and give each section its own health, but have the total combined so that when the total goes down by X, it's dead.

At last news, the engine has 15 HP.
AC/20 has 18.
Typical ammo, heatsinks, other weapons have 10 HP.

It is FAR less work than the proposals thus far, and in closed beta actuators did take critical hits and had effects. For example a damaged leg actuator made it so that you had to repeatedly correct your course (as you'd drift in the direction of the damaged leg). A damaged lower arm actuator offset the aim of the weapon in that arm horizontally so it'd never converge correctly onto the crosshair. A damaged upper actuator would do the same thing but vertically.

So this stuff WAS in the game already but taken out ("ZOMG this doesn't work. That's broken.") Basically a lot of players who had no idea what was going on because it wasn't explained kept reporting it as bugs.

Another good example of stuff that used to be in the game was a true heat penalty. Remaining above 80% heat for a second would cause 1 point of damage to one equipment, weapon or ammo. So you hit 80% and stay there for 3 seconds. AC/20 Ammo took 1 damage. AC/20 took 1 damage. Heatsink took 1 damage. And sooner or later you'd lose something. Also taken out (single heatsinks would leave you above 80% for quite a while due to the rising threshold system... 20 SHS is supposed to take 15 seconds to cool you off. With the rising threshold, it took over 26 seconds to cool you to zero for 20 SHS).


That's good info, thanks.

#6 Nightmare1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,636 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeeking over your shoulder while eating your cookies.

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:03 PM

It's enough that the engines are locked and cannot be switched out. No need to nerf them too. PGI balanced the Clan Excels by restricting the Clan Mechs to set speeds. The upside is that the engines are tougher, but the downside is that pilots will always be stuck running at that same speed. That makes their movements more predictable.

Just learn to fire more effectively. I have no problem killing Clanners - they seem to be glass cannons to me. I've used TDRs, QKDs, HBKs, and BLRs to melt them down in their tracks. The engine is only an issue when I am forced to fight multiple Clanners.

You also have to remember that they are losing half their Mech when they lose a torso. While the loss of, for example, a right torso on a Nova may not cause any penalties in terms of the engine, the Mech still loses anything in that RT plus whatever is in the RA, just like their IS counterparts. That's fair. If you advocate critting the engine like this, then that mechanic would also need to be implemented for the IS Mechs (fairness), and I don't think anyone wants to see those nerfed right now...

#7 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:06 PM

View PostNightmare1, on 17 August 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

If you advocate critting the engine like this, then that mechanic would also need to be implemented for the IS Mechs (fairness), and I don't think anyone wants to see those nerfed right now...


If we're talking actual critical hit implementation, then by all means, apply it to everyone and everything. Sensors, actuators, engines, whatever.

If we're talking my suggestions in the OP, then IS mechs already suffer from a more extreme version of this, since when you blow a side torso with an XL the mech dies.

#8 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:15 PM

Please make it a simple suggestion with a yes or no (optional: don't care) poll.

If you simply want to discuss possible solutions to nerf the clan xl engine, the general discussion forums are the place for you.

Edited by Egomane, 17 August 2014 - 12:16 PM.


#9 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:35 PM

View PostEgomane, on 17 August 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Please make it a simple suggestion with a yes or no (optional: don't care) poll.

If you simply want to discuss possible solutions to nerf the clan xl engine, the general discussion forums are the place for you.


Okay, I'll edit the poll.

#10 MilesTeg1982

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 255 posts

Posted 19 August 2014 - 01:06 PM

vote no because its just not neccessary!

1. if you loose a side torso in a clan (same of IS) mech your in big trouble allready because that means usually half of your weapons are gone too - and since most people don't hit the side torso only you will have at least damaged armor on other parts of your mech too. In other words - your chances of survival at that point are pretty low anyway - not need to punish players further.

2. Clan Mechs are nerfed in several ways in Order to balance them to IS-Mechs allready - enough is enough! espeacially since the last nerf which made cERL useless.

3. I'm just curious - how is it possible to transfer rules from a turn based game (TT) to a shooter which is real time? A game where factors like reaction time, targeting skill, etc. influence the outcome? well imho. every time someone comes up with tome TT reference its either to justify a nerf because they think something (they don't use) is OP (and therefore want to punish everyone else using it) or to buff something they are using (in other words they want an i-Win-Button without thinking how that would influence the rest of the game).

#11 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:29 PM

View PostMilesTeg1982, on 19 August 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

vote no because its just not neccessary!

1. if you loose a side torso in a clan (same of IS) mech your in big trouble allready because that means usually half of your weapons are gone too - and since most people don't hit the side torso only you will have at least damaged armor on other parts of your mech too. In other words - your chances of survival at that point are pretty low anyway - not need to punish players further.

2. Clan Mechs are nerfed in several ways in Order to balance them to IS-Mechs allready - enough is enough! espeacially since the last nerf which made cERL useless.

3. I'm just curious - how is it possible to transfer rules from a turn based game (TT) to a shooter which is real time? A game where factors like reaction time, targeting skill, etc. influence the outcome? well imho. every time someone comes up with tome TT reference its either to justify a nerf because they think something (they don't use) is OP (and therefore want to punish everyone else using it) or to buff something they are using (in other words they want an i-Win-Button without thinking how that would influence the rest of the game).


Re. (1): If an IS mech in a STD engine build loses a ST, it loses everything in that side torso and the arm. If a Clan mech with a cXL loses a side torso, it loses everything in that side torso and the arm. If an IS mech with an XL loses a side torso, it flat-out dies.

If an IS mech with a STD engine build loses both STs, it is pretty much safe to ignore it and move on. Even zombie builds are generally ignorable once both STs are blown. The fact that a Clan mech dies if both STs get blown is only a minimal disadvantage, especially with no penalty for dying. If repair costs were a factor, STD engines would be huge from a playability standpoint, and nobody would be able to afford Clan tech.

Re. (2): The cERLL is hardly useless. It is just a little bit harder to use (and incidentally the cLPL now isn't redundant anymore). In general PGI needs to do a full pass on Clan lasers, since there are several outliers and several pointless lasers. However, just because one area of Clan tech got a slight nerf to a single weapon system that was hugely powerful as it was, doesn't mean that the primary underlying cause of much of the raw power offered by Clan tech could use some minor, and entirely canon, downside.

Re. (3): Aside from a few things that were thrown out either due to complexity or due to lack of player understanding (see Koniving's post above), and aside from some changes made to "enhance" gameplay (say, huge across-the-board rate of fire buffs), the vast majority of MWO's gameplay is very close to TT functionality. The argument against adapting a TT turn-based game into a real-time combat sim while remaining relatively faithful to the core mechanics is an old one on these forums, and is usually just as specious as your claims about "every time someone comes up with tome [sic] TT reference" being to justify something in their own narrow self-interest.

Take weapon cooldown times. PGI hugely reduced those, resulting in between 2 and 20 times the firepower of a weapon system from TT (the old AC2 fired roughly 20 times over 10s, instead of just once, and now it's more like 14 times, so still hugely buffed). If PGI had kept the 10s damage ratings of each weapon while still increasing rates of fire, they could have reduced damage and heat output per-shot (and increased ammo counts appropriately) to match TT performance while still making gameplay fast-paced and exciting (which admittedly 10s cooldowns on every weapon probably wouldn't be).

As for the whole pilot skill factor, most of the skill in current MWO gameplay is one of two kinds: reflexive (non-cerebral, based on twitch capability and unconscious action) and reflective (timing, conscious decision-making, etc.). The former is why the PPFLD playstyle has become dominant, because it's much easier to become passably skilled at twitch gaming than it is to get a true feel for the tactical flow of a battle and to learn timing and make judgment calls in the heat of the moment.

If PGI implemented some kind of dynamic precision reduction system (I must have a thread regarding that floating around somewhere; I know I've posted my basic idea in countless places), they could retain most of the reflexive skill while promoting those reflective skills that truly separate battlefield Mechwarriors from Solaris duelists. However, since DPR is not the topic of this thread, I will not go into further detail regarding it. I merely bring it up as an example of applying underlying principles drawn from the TT game to inspire improved gameplay mechanics (note, not slavishly adhering to TT rules as written).

As for cXLs specifically, the mere fact that a Clan mech can run a cXL without dying upon losing the first ST means that Clan mechs will have in some cases up to double the payload of a comparable IS mech. This is amplified by the impact of generally lighter Clan weapons and the smaller cDHS. Sure, that firepower is largely more spread out on a target, but when you have double the payload with essentially the same useful lifespan, it can become a problem, and there's only so much that long beam times, burst-fire ACs, and streamed LRMs can do to mitigate it. For an IS mech to even begin to approach the same relative firepower, it has to sacrifice a vast amount of survivability, and for an IS mech to gain that same level of survivability, it has to sacrifice a huge quantity of firepower.

Finally, what about the very nature of game balance itself? Balance is generally maintained by using tradeoffs. You gain an advantage in one area, but take a penalty in another. Look at cACs and lasers. You gain an edge in range, weight, and space, but you lose damage concentration (burst fire cACs and much longer burn times on lasers). Look at cLRMs: you gain damage inside the minimum range, as well as sizable weight and space savings, but you lose concentrated volleys and suffer increased AMS vulnerability.

What about cXLs? You gain a huge weight savings over STD engines, and a huge survivability savings over XLs. What do you lose? You die if both STs get popped. In the vast majority of mechs, if you lose both STs you are unarmed anyway. A very few can mount zombie weapons (Head and CT weapon slots). However, the weapons that an IS mech can mount in those hardpoints are decidedly limited (the odd LPL or ERLL, or 1-3 MLs or MPLs, depending on the hardpoints). Sure, a LPL can hurt, as can a few MLs, but that's nothing compared to the firepower of the mech if it has already lost both STs (and the vast majority of its payload). What is the Clan player really losing by dying when the second ST blows out? Not much, especially since very few Clan Omnimechs include meaningful CT and Head weapons (Puma Flamers are not worth living for).

So again, what is the cXL really giving up for the two huge advantages it gives you? The ability to change engine types is not a function of engine, but of build philosophy. Omnimechs, IS or Clan, are stuck with what they have. Battlemechs, IS or Clan, can swap engines. The mere fact that all IS mechs are currently Battlemechs and all Clan mechs are currently Omnimechs is simply the vagaries of fate (and PGI's decision-making). cXLs have nothing to do with it.

The implementation of some kind of penalty for losing a ST when running a cXL (and later an IS Light Engine) is simply an attempt to provide some kind of drawback at least to begin to balance the two huge advantages that the engine type brings.

In short, most of the arguments against having some kind of penalty when you lose a side torso with a cXL are spurious or disingenuous, at best. Meanwhile, the arguments for having said penalty, whatever it may be, have the backing of lore, TT, and healthy game balance.

#12 Fire and Salt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 25 August 2014 - 05:19 AM

I would like to see a heat penalty for losing a side torso.



I must say that I am quite glad that engine crits aren't implemented.
Luck should not determine whether you live or die, in a game of skill.

Crits are great for destroying weapons and heat sinks, since there is really no other way to have it so that you can lose a weapon out of a component without the use if a RNG. Losing a heat sink or a PPC is cool.

Dying from 1 ppc to the back because you only had 9 back armor and your opponent scored a triple critical hit...that has no place in a game of skill. Leave the dice in tabletop where possible.

#13 Tim East

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 25 August 2014 - 03:49 PM

If you only have 9 back armor, you almost deserve to die from one PPC shot. :D I've been one-shot on numerous occasions, especially back during the 40 damage PPFLD meta. Drive a Locust and complain about PPC instant kills, lol.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users