Jump to content

Instead Of Nerf'ing Clan Xl Engines...

Balance

24 replies to this topic

#21 Tatula

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 683 posts
  • LocationSF Bay Area

Posted 29 September 2014 - 01:17 PM

View PostXarian, on 29 September 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Because this makes them nearly identical to Clan XL engines. This is a bad thing.

Most IS XL engines are fine. Most IS Std engines are also fine. The only exceptions are the really light engines - the game needs engines smaller than 100 rating (for the Urbanmech, obviously), and the small engines need more internal heat sinks (this diverges from TT, but lights in TT were never supposed to be remotely equal in BV to heavier mechs). This would also apply to small Clan engines.

Give Clan XL engines heat and movement penalties if you lose a ST. Give everyone appropriate heat penalties at high heat and remove the "override = automatic CT death" mechanic (mech is more sluggish at high heat, for example). Increase heat dissipation rates across the board, but lower maximum threshold. Combine those three things and suddenly Clans will take a huge hit for losing a ST - slower, and no more alphas.


How are they nearly identical? If we leave the Clan XL alone (BTW, so far ALL Clan engines are XL, correct?) so they work as they do now (no performance degradation from ST damage), but buff IS XL's so both ST's have to be destroyed before dying (like the legs), and 50% performance degradation from a single ST being destroyed, Clan mech still retain an advantage over IS XL's and STD's in terms of weight and durability.

I just hate to see Clan mechs get nerf after nerf, and an XL buff to IS seems like a good way to get more IS mediums field.

#22 CMDR Sunset Shimmer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,341 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 29 September 2014 - 01:52 PM

View PostAloha, on 29 September 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Instead of nerf'ing the Clan XL engine (making them lose power when the side torsos are damaged), how about buff'ing the IS XL engine?

What I mean is, let's make the IS mechs with XL engine not die when side torso is breached. Instead make them lose power (25% with is side torso, 50% with both side torso) like it was proposed as a nerf to Clan engines.

Probably lots of Pros and Cons, but one result is that IS mechs with XL engine won't be as easy to kill as it is now, which will make battles last a little longer. IS lights will benefit, but hopefully hit registration will get better and they'll lose some of that lag armor. IS mediums will be much more viable, and IS heavies and assaults with XL's won't be so fragile.

Discuss?


IS XL's are destroyed, because there are 3 engine critical's taken up in each side torso with an XL engine.

A Mech dies when 3 critical hits are applied to the engine.

#23 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 29 September 2014 - 02:12 PM

View PostAloha, on 29 September 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Instead of nerf'ing the Clan XL engine (making them lose power when the side torsos are damaged), how about buff'ing the IS XL engine?

What I mean is, let's make the IS mechs with XL engine not die when side torso is breached. Instead make them lose power (25% with is side torso, 50% with both side torso) like it was proposed as a nerf to Clan engines.

Probably lots of Pros and Cons, but one result is that IS mechs with XL engine won't be as easy to kill as it is now, which will make battles last a little longer. IS lights will benefit, but hopefully hit registration will get better and they'll lose some of that lag armor. IS mediums will be much more viable, and IS heavies and assaults with XL's won't be so fragile.

Discuss?



-sigh- the best option would be to let the inner Sphere get their hands on Light Engines sooner, than 3053 for the prototypes...

75% of the weight of a standard engine, but all the survivability of a clan XL engine...

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

#24 RedDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,942 posts
  • LocationKurpfalz, Germany

Posted 29 September 2014 - 02:24 PM

View PostAloha, on 29 September 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

I just hate to see Clan mechs get nerf after nerf, and an XL buff to IS seems like a good way to get more IS mediums field.

What is the problem? PGI decided to ignore asymmetrical battles, therefore Clan tech must be made identical to IS tech. You can either buff IS or nerf Clan, but the result must be the same or they don't achieve their goal. And when your goal is to make Clan tech comparable to IS tech, you can nerf the Clans into the ground because buffing IS would have the same effect (indirect nerf of Clans) while messing up the (not really existing) balance they tried to get with IS mechs over the last 3 years.

#25 Here5y

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 377 posts

Posted 21 October 2014 - 07:45 AM

Clan Tech gets nerfed for good reasons. If you want a real fast Mech as IS get XL Engine . You want a Mech more sturdy and durable than a Clan Machine ? Get a Standard Reactor.

Clan Tech ( except Garnison Class Mechs ) have no choice and always get a Clan XL , which is a Mix between IS STD and IS XL.

The Problem is Clan XL was implemented in a wrong way ( almost no difference to IS STD ) in the first place.
If you implement the Clans in the OP Fashion like in Tabletop all IS Mechs will be rendered useless in the current Environment.

A Discussion about the Environment is another Topic - but if we take this environment we have in consideration it`s a step in the right direction imo.

Take a look at the Tier Classification ( Competitive Player`s Ratings of Mechs and Builds ) and you will see, that more and more Clan Builds take the Tier 1 ( best Classifacation ) Slots in the list.

Regards,

Plizzken

Edited by Plizzken, 21 October 2014 - 07:47 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users