14 replies to this topic

[Hillslam]

...is not enough.

Losing 20% cooling is trivial. Considering you will have lost on average 50% of your weapons, losing 20% of your cooling will be shrugged off as inconsequential.

This was well campaigned for by the clanners (myself excluded - being a full clan package owner and operator). So kudos for getting that toned down. Congratulations, you avoided taking any penalty in this round of balancing.

However what you're going to find, I'm predicting, is that you chopped off your own foot. What we'll see is that this 20% loss in cooling will net out in game as transparent, invisible and meaningless. It certainly is meaningless compared to the other customers driving IS gear dieing. And they'll know it. No amount of forum blathering and bleating will change what they see ingame.

So expect another round of debate on this folks. Except now this time we can be treated to the clan apologists feigning injury (due to the "aggregious and heavy handed 20% loss of cooling) akin to the acting shown by Premiere League soccer players faking injuries.

comedy ensues. I await the forum brotheling.

*Russ's proposal below*

Quote

Destruction of a Clan Side Torso
Although we hope to eventually put in a full engine critical hit system that would affect both IS and Clan 'Mechs, we are going to start out with a change to place some penalty on a Clan 'Mech that loses a side torso. Essentially, there needs to be some penalty for losing 2 critical engine slots. Using the tabletop game as a guideline, we have decided to not make movement a part of the penalty but to save that for some future implementation on the effects of heat on your 'Mechs functionality. A Clan engine has a total of 10 critical engine slots and the destruction of a Side Torso in a clan ‘Mech means the loss of two of those slots, or 20%. With this in mind, we have decided to implement a rule that the destruction of a side torso in a Clan 'Mech will result in a loss of 20% of the engines internal heat sink capacity. By way of example, a Timber Wolf with 15 internal engine heat sinks will lose the cooling equivalent of 3 of those heat sinks. A small penalty, but we feel that heat sink loss along with the loss of everything in that torso and arm will be enough.

Edited by Hillslam, 30 September 2014 - 11:57 AM.

[Mechteric]

There's a whole 'nother thread already discussing this. I agree however, its not enough.

CapperDeluxe, on 30 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

I would agree that only a 2 heat sink loss doesn't seem like it would harm the mech at all, especially since if they lost any weapons they'd already probably be running cooler to where it won't make much difference. Now I see why they are delaying the speed loss since that will be nice to have also when running too hot, but in the meantime it should be more of a heat penalty.

That said, I thought in TableTop that each engine crit you take brings along +5 heat, so in fact you should lose the equivalent of 5 engine double heat sinks when losing a side torso.

[Mcgral18]

Just remember, too much and you're also gimping the Cute Fox, the Badder, the Suckoner, the Nope-Va, the PeaceDove, the MythLynx, the IceHamster, and the Bear'o'Care named Doug.


The sub optimal and just plain bad chassis' are hurt by blanket nerfs just as much, if not more, than the good chassis'. Careful to not make them terribad.

[3rdworld]

Mcgral18, on 30 September 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Just remember, too much and you're also gimping the Cute Fox, the Badder, the Suckoner, the Nope-Va, the PeaceDove, the MythLynx, the IceHamster, and the Bear'o'Care named Doug.


The sub optimal and just plain bad chassis' are hurt by blanket nerfs just as much, if not more, than the good chassis'. Careful to not make them terribad.

Chassis viability has never been piggies strong suit.

[Ultimax]

Mcgral18, on 30 September 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Just remember, too much and you're also gimping the Cute Fox, the Badder, the Suckoner, the Nope-Va, the PeaceDove, the MythLynx, the IceHamster, and the Bear'o'Care named Doug.


The sub optimal and just plain bad chassis' are hurt by blanket nerfs just as much, if not more, than the good chassis'. Careful to not make them terribad.

On top of that, he's missing the point that mech has already lost half or more of their stuff.

Weapons, ammo, heatsinks, Jump Jets, etc.




As much as people don't want to hear it, there needs to be some advantage for having a completely locked engine choice whether its an optimal size or not.

Including locked structure, locked armor, locked DHS, locked JJs, fixed crit slots, etc.

3rdworld, on 30 September 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Chassis viability has never been piggies strong suit.

What makes those mechs average or below average, mostly comes directly from table top and follows the omni-pod construction rules.

Without those rules, most of the clan mechs would shoot up into T1 or T2 status, including even mechs like the Adder.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 30 September 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Ultimatum X, on 30 September 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

On top of that, he's missing the point that mech has already lost half or more of their stuff.

Weapons, ammo, heatsinks, Jump Jets, etc.




As much as people don't want to hear it, there needs to be some advantage for having a completely locked engine choice whether its an optimal size or not.

Including locked structure, locked armor, locked DHS, locked JJs, fixed crit slots, etc.

I think its called hard point flexibility.

as for the fix... clan mechs need to loose engine power not heat dissipation. loose a torso section and guess what your engine is now 30% less functional and you run and torso twist much slower. your at a definite disadvantage when you suddenly loose not just a large part of your weapons but speed as well.

[3rdworld]

Ultimatum X, on 30 September 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

What makes those mechs average or below average, mostly comes directly from table top and follows the omni-pod construction rules.

Without those rules, most of the clan mechs would shoot up into T1 or T2 status, including even mechs like the Adder.

Scaling, where the weapon is mounted, hitboxes, quirks, JJs, ECM, Hardpoint inflation.

There are many things that can make a chassis viable.

Edited by 3rdworld, 30 September 2014 - 12:43 PM.

[Kalimaster]

Let's say we leave crippling these Mechs alone for now and work on possible expansions to the game and get CW working. Sound alright to you. There is a lot of work that needs to be done yet and we can work on baking these things out as time goes on.

[Dracol]

Hillslam, on 30 September 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

...is not enough.

Losing 20% cooling is trivial. Considering you will have lost on average 50% of your weapons, losing 20% of your cooling will be shrugged off as inconsequential.

This was well campaigned for by the clanners (myself excluded - being a full clan package owner and operator). So kudos for getting that toned down. Congratulations, you avoided taking any penalty in this round of balancing.

However what you're going to find, I'm predicting, is that you chopped off your own foot. What we'll see is that this 20% loss in cooling will net out in game as transparent, invisible and meaningless. It certainly is meaningless compared to the other customers driving IS gear dieing. And they'll know it. No amount of forum blathering and bleating will change what they see ingame.

So expect another round of debate on this folks. Except now this time we can be treated to the clan apologists feigning injury (due to the "aggregious and heavy handed 20% loss of cooling) akin to the acting shown by Premiere League soccer players faking injuries.

Did it ever occur to you that this change was not directly aimed at mechs with balanced loadouts, but against asymetrical builds that were effectively utilizing an arm and full torso to soak damage? These builds could lose their shield side completely and still remain at 100% effectiveness. Now, when that damage soaking torso is destroyed, they at least have something of a penalty.

[process]

Dracol, on 30 September 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Did it ever occur to you that this change was not directly aimed at mechs with balanced loadouts, but against asymetrical builds that were effectively utilizing an arm and full torso to soak damage? These builds could lose their shield side completely and still remain at 100% effectiveness. Now, when that damage soaking torso is destroyed, they at least have something of a penalty.

Potentially losing all your weapons is penalty enough. One-sided-loading is a risk unto itself.

[Wintersdark]

process, on 30 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Potentially losing all your weapons is penalty enough. One-sided-loading is a risk unto itself.

Unless you're not bad. Its pretty trivial to use a shield side effectively.

[Dracol]

process, on 30 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Potentially losing all your weapons is penalty enough. One-sided-loading is a risk unto itself.

Skilled players make sure to have the shield face the enemy.......

[Wintersdark]

Anyways, I'd rather they make a small change that may not be enough than make giant yoyo changes Paul Style.

Let's see how Clan vs. IS balance is with the additional heat penalty AND the IS quirk pass, and from there if more needs to be done then it can be.

Small iterative changes are far, far better and have much less risk of collateral damage.

[1453 R]

Hillslam, on 30 September 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

...is not enough.

Losing 20% cooling is trivial. Considering you will have lost on average 50% of your weapons, losing 20% of your cooling will be shrugged off as inconsequential.

This was well campaigned for by the clanners (myself excluded - being a full clan package owner and operator). So kudos for getting that toned down. Congratulations, you avoided taking any penalty in this round of balancing.

However what you're going to find, I'm predicting, is that you chopped off your own foot. What we'll see is that this 20% loss in cooling will net out in game as transparent, invisible and meaningless. It certainly is meaningless compared to the other customers driving IS gear dieing. And they'll know it. No amount of forum blathering and bleating will change what they see ingame.

So expect another round of debate on this folks. Except now this time we can be treated to the clan apologists feigning injury (due to the "aggregious and heavy handed 20% loss of cooling) akin to the acting shown by Premiere League soccer players faking injuries.

comedy ensues. I await the forum brotheling.

*Russ's proposal below*
[/size]

You're not going to be satisfied until Clan 'Mechs die to shoulder blowouts, are you Hillslam?

100% of the same Spheroid penalty of running an XL engine, 0% of the Spheroid flexibility in choosing engine size type, or heat sink configuration.

People must've liked the Spheroid PP(A)C jump-sniping meta a whole lot more than they claimed they did, because a lot of folks around here will do anything to get rid of the Clans completely so they can go back to it.

[Ultimax]

3rdworld, on 30 September 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Scaling, where the weapon is mounted, hitboxes, quirks, JJs, ECM, Hardpoint inflation.

There are many things that can make a chassis viable.

Good points.