86 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alright, with the Summoner discussion thread taking place and discussion between a couple people over Clan vs IS, I thought it would be a good idea to bring something up.

To start with, let me get this out of the way, without structure or armor quirks, the Clan XL is the source of the Clan's power. It allows the Clan mechs to get good speed without sacrificing firepower or durability. Being a clan mech, it also has access to the better ranged lasers meaning it gets a boost in 4 important aspects of a mech.

Side Note: Maneuverability being tied to engine rating only exacerbates the benefits of the larger engines, like has been said for over 3 years, this connection needs to be removed.

Now, the interesting thing about quirks, is that a large chunk of the mechs that are often relegated to standard engines because of their profile (TBolt, Hunchie, Atlas, etc) got structure boosts to the side torso. Now what if that didn't have to be a quirk, but an inherent feature of standard engines? This becomes important because the Clans have no reason to ever run a standard engine mech, ever. The case would be the same with the IS light engine, as outside of lights there would be no reason NOT to use it.

I know I always bring up MW4:HC in almost every discussion, but to its benefit, it did a lot of good things to the balance on things like these.
Either way, in that mod, standard engines had two things going for it:

• All torso internals were doubled.
  
• Max heat is boosted by 50%. <- Not quite as important

Now, just with the internal boost, the Hunchback without quirks would have 48 internals, and a maximum of 48 armor which is a 24 point increase. In comparison, it currently has a +12 internal quirk and +18 armor quirk. The Thunderbolt would get twice the quirk it has now and the poor Atlas would get 31 extra points to its internals (only gets 11 now, which barely amounts to much). Keep in mind this isn't just side torsos, this is CT as well so mechs with large CTs can also benefit from this. Obviously the number can be adjusted a bit since that is quite a lot, but considering what most mechs sacrifice to mount a standard engine, I feel it has to be something significant.


In other words, with this change, many side torso internals/armor boosts could be done away with.

As for the max heat, this one is interesting. I would almost say that if it were 25% higher max heat and 25% better cooling, it would more than makeup for heat quirks if they were to be removed as well. Really this was a larger boon than most might think, as it allowed you to manage poking a lot better when you don't have to worry about a massive heat spike shutting you down as easily. Then again, HC had lower max heat ratings and weapons recycled slower there, so the heat dynamic was a little different.

Basically what I'm suggesting is to get rid of the torso structure boosts and just make that an inherent feature of standard engines. This not only helps the IS, but the standard engine Clan mechs should we ever get one.



Now as for IS XLs, which are pretty much death traps in all but lights and some mediums. Just get rid of the side torso destruction = kill rule. It is that simple, this is part of what makes the Clan XL so great, once you are stripped to just CT, there isn't much you can do anyway and on mechs with no CT/H hardpoints there is nothing you can do. So dying upon losing both side torsos isn't a huge deal to them, especially when you gain so much from the trade-off.

Now many TT purists will probably rage over this, but they also forget that the IS can only compete through force in numbers. If it weren't for some of these quirks, the IS would still be a decent amount worse than their clan counterparts, so some more things need to change for the IS to have a better chance against the God Tier mechs (which Im sure the Cheetah will join the ranks of, completing the set) and a large part of the reason for the disparity is the engines.

As for Light engines, if XL engines no longer meant no more side torso kills, what point will they have over XLs? Well HC gave them half the boosts that standards got in exchange which meant a decent enough trade-off (speed for tangible durability). So that is always a good start however that is still a ways away from being added.

Huge Side Note: This would probably have weird effects on TTK, since many mechs would get boosted protection, but also be able to mount more firepower.


tl;dr - Rather than quirk everything with boosted internals, just boost IS engines to not suck.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 March 2015 - 01:01 PM.

[FupDup]

For Clan XL, I think it would be fair to bump up their penalty for a side loss to something like 40-50%. Right now it's 15%, which is barely noticeable on builds that aren't completely sword + board. As a last resort, maybe throw in a -10% top speed as well, which would essentially remove Speed Tweak from the mech if the side got blown out. I'd prefer not to do that however because of the impact it would have on the sub-par chassis like the Nova and Badder.

Maybe the Speed Retention module could be updated to negate this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also wonder if the Clan vs IS XL thing could be solved via engine crits...I think an interesting mechanic would be to have the IS XL have a higher item health so that it can't be critted out as quickly, but you die to a side loss. Meanwhile, the Clan one could survive a side loss but would be more vulnerable to crits due to lower health. This might lower TTK however, so it's just an academic exercise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all engines in general, I don't really like the TT rule about sub-250 engines needing to allocate sinks on the outside instead of the inside. It just poops on lower-tonnage mechs by eating up a lot of their critslots and also making them less heat efficient (1.4 Poordubs). If sub-250 engines got all 10 of their sinks on the inside, it would give them more space to build with and a bit better cooling ability. Engine tonnage would be adjusted accordingly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, agility should be primarily based on mech tonnage instead of engine size, with quirks here and there to distinguish mechs that are meant to be more (or less) agile than the "usual."

Edited by FupDup, 09 March 2015 - 01:14 PM.

[Pjwned]

Better yet just make it so that losing a chunk of your clan mech's XL engine actually matters, 20% heatsink loss is practically nothing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 09 March 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

For Clan XL, I think it would be fair to bump up their penalty for a side loss to something like 40-50%. Right now it's 15%, which is barely noticeable on builds that aren't completely sword + board. As a last resort, maybe throw in a -10% top speed as well, which would essentially remove Speed Tweak from the mech if the side got blown out. I'd prefer not to do that however because of the impact it would have on the sub-par chassis like the Nova and Badder.

Maybe the Speed Retention module could be updated to negate this?


I also wonder if the Clan vs IS XL thing could be solved via engine crits...I think an interesting mechanic would be to have the IS XL have a higher item health so that it can't be critted out as quickly, but you die to a side loss. Meanwhile, the Clan one could survive a side loss but would be more vulnerable to crits due to lower health. This might lower TTK however, so it's just an academic exercise.

The problem I have with making Clan XLs less effective as opposed to boosting the effectiveness of the other engines, is that boosting the durability of the other engines actually helps with the TTK problem a little bit. Which is why I suggested otherwise.

It also still doesn't touch the interesting fact that out of all the IS mechs that got torso structure quirks (BJ, Hunch, Jager, TBolt, Cataphract, Orion, Awesome, Atlas), almost all run standard engines typically. Though this would have the effect of making the Stalker, Banshee, and the King Crab even better as well.....but it's not like they couldn't stand to be improved a little more.

As for engine crits, I thought engine crits were still non-functional outside of section destruction?

FupDup, on 09 March 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

For all engines in general, I don't really like the TT rule about sub-250 engines needing to allocate sinks on the outside instead of the inside. It just poops on lower-tonnage mechs by eating up a lot of their critslots and also making them less heat efficient (1.4 Poordubs). If sub-250 engines got all 10 of their sinks on the inside, it would give them more space to build with and a bit better cooling ability. Engine tonnage would be adjusted accordingly.

Agreed, this is one of the reason I liked MW4's simpler mechlab from a design standpoint. Not to mention heat sinks aren't as effective in the Mechwarrior series to force heat management as an aspect, so mounting 30+ heat sinks ends up becoming wasteful when you could just add a more heat efficient weapon in its place. Then again, the best mechs in MW4 tended to run very few heat sinks in the first place so that is neither here nor there.

Simply allowing all 10 stock heat sinks to reside in the engine and have truedub status would be a large boost to smaller mechs.

FupDup, on 09 March 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

Also, agility should be primarily based on mech tonnage instead of engine size, with quirks here and there to distinguish mechs that are meant to be more (or less) agile than the "usual."

Agreed, this is what I thought would happen, but was disappointed when it didn't.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 March 2015 - 01:33 PM.

[Lightfoot]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 March 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

tl;dr - Rather than quirk everything with boosted internals, just boost IS engines to not suck.

Unlock Clan Mechlab and sure. I know how to build a Thor with 2xLB-20X and 2xER mediums and it goes 80kph. This was the standard brawler in MW3 and MW4. MWO has blocked Clan tech fairly well you see.

Just saying the Clans are saddled with a lot of lock downs that never affect Inner Sphere tech because Inner Sphere has an Open Mechlab and Clan tech has a Closed Mechlab. Omnipod switch-outs are "Field Modifications" and Mechlab is where you modify engines, armor, equipment, internals and if the mech is a non-omnimech, this is where you change weapons.

End run, PGI are mostly Battle Tech purists -except for the really weird Gauss Rifle de-sync, Ghost Heat, and the Pretty Baby's hard-points, so I would say just forget about it. You can always become a Clanner, but I am going to rejoin the Inner Sphere one day because they actually have the best mechs right now.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 09 March 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

For Clan XL, I think it would be fair to bump up their penalty for a side loss to something like 40-50%. Right now it's 15%, which is barely noticeable on builds that aren't completely sword + board. As a last resort, maybe throw in a -10% top speed as well, which would essentially remove Speed Tweak from the mech if the side got blown out. I'd prefer not to do that however because of the impact it would have on the sub-par chassis like the Nova and Badder.

Maybe the Speed Retention module could be updated to negate this?

I'm more partial to a speed loss reduction of 20% on a side torso loss. The heat penalty thing is fine as is though.

If you want to "counteract" some of the worse mechs, give them a small speed bump to offset it (like +5% or +10% to speed, ontop of Speed Tweak). Let me know when the Nova going fast is suddenly OP.

I'd rather rework the Speed Retention module so that "stun lock" doesn't occur. I mean... OMG, I can go 50kph instead of 40kph when I'm not shot at. WOW!!!!!11!

Quote

I also wonder if the Clan vs IS XL thing could be solved via engine crits...I think an interesting mechanic would be to have the IS XL have a higher item health so that it can't be critted out as quickly, but you die to a side loss. Meanwhile, the Clan one could survive a side loss but would be more vulnerable to crits due to lower health. This might lower TTK however, so it's just an academic exercise.

I don't think that's possible.

However, I think you can be kinda creative with the XL destruction rule for IS mechs. The health must be increased enough (or structurally a lot more sound) that it would "survive" an XL side-torso destruction damage outright so that a Light mech would not die as quick if its side torso is removed (you'd need to deal more damage to the exposed side to finish off the XL engine's health) BUT not make it durable enough for something like a 65-ton Thunderbolt to be "well off" (there should be a cutoff, probably at around the 55-tonner level).

The concept can be tweaked.

For Clan Mechs... I'd need some time to stew on the idea.

Quote

For all engines in general, I don't really like the TT rule about sub-250 engines needing to allocate sinks on the outside instead of the inside. It just poops on lower-tonnage mechs by eating up a lot of their critslots and also making them less heat efficient (1.4 Poordubs). If sub-250 engines got all 10 of their sinks on the inside, it would give them more space to build with and a bit better cooling ability. Engine tonnage would be adjusted accordingly.

Yes, but we'll never have nice things.

Quote

Also, agility should be primarily based on mech tonnage instead of engine size, with quirks here and there to distinguish mechs that are meant to be more (or less) agile than the "usual."

Sure, but I doubt they will go back on addressing this anytime soon.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 March 2015 - 01:51 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lightfoot, on 09 March 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

You can always become a Clanner, but I am going to rejoin the Inner Sphere one day because they actually have the best mechs right now.

You may want to check up on that because it is still a good time to be a clanner, and Wave III only looks to continue that with all mechs from Wave II outside of possibly the Hellbringer being outclassed.
Granted I have been in favor of making Clan mechs more customizable since day 1, because mechs like the Ice Ferret make me sad.

[Cebi]

It's definitely worth discussing this. If IS XL/std and clan XL engines could be balanced directly against each other it would be much easier to have a proper look at clan vs IS balance.

At the moment when compared clan XLs have all the advantages of an IS XL, plus taking up less crit slots and not dying to loss of a side torso. And vs standards; they weigh a lot less whilst offering almost the same level of survivability... and there are only a few viable zombie mechs, and even then the amount of firepower they can support when nuggeted is laughable.

In return: free endo/ferro for the poor should be considered. This would help bring the lesser clan mechs up to scratch.

[topgun505]

Yes. Engine crits are still not modeled aside from full side torso destructions.

But honestly, they SHOULD be implemented. I can't imagine that it would be all that hard to code.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pjwned, on 09 March 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

Better yet just make it so that losing a chunk of your clan mech's XL engine actually matters, 20% heatsink loss is practically nothing.

Needs 25 % speed reduction too.

[Ultimax]

Good write up.

WM Quicksilver, on 09 March 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

In other words, with this change, many side torso internals/armor boosts could be done away with.

Basically what I'm suggesting is to get rid of the torso structure boosts and just make that an inherent feature of standard engines. This not only helps the IS, but the standard engine Clan mechs should we ever get one.

The main issue here is that not all geometry is created equal, so if I can put a STD in any mech and get this benefit – mechs with superior geometry come out ahead.

Which was the original concept behind quirking specific mechs based on their overall rating (hardpoints, geometry, etc)




As for the higher heat cap and dissipation:

I like this idea for STD engines in general, not sure if 25% of each might be a bit too large.


Also, as above not all mechs are created equal.

I can stuff 20 to 24 DHS into a Stalker easily for energy boat builds - then I'd get additional cooling from the STD engine I have to take.

I can't get nearly as many DHS into an Atlas, because weapons like an AC 20 and multiple SRMs gobble up crit space.


So I think some boost for STD would be nice, but it should not be a replacement for quirks - rather an addition and adjustment to how quirks are handled.

WM Quicksilver, on 09 March 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

Now as for IS XLs, which are pretty much death traps in all but lights and some mediums. Just get rid of the side torso destruction = kill rule. It is that simple, this is part of what makes the Clan XL so great, once you are stripped to just CT, there isn't much you can do anyway and on mechs with no CT/H hardpoints there is nothing you can do. So dying upon losing both side torsos isn't a huge deal to them, especially when you gain so much from the trade-off.

IS XL is definitely in a very difficult place vs. Clan XL and obviously clearly inferior - especially on larger mechs.

I agree something needs to be done to prevent the easy kills they can present - however I would temper this with the fact that while Clan XL is clearly superior the stipulation is that it is locked to the mech.

I'm not exactly sure where to find the best balance point between outright superior design vs. customizability.

For everyone suggesting more nerfs to CXL side torso destruction.


It's a worthwhile idea to think about, but it doesn't address the actual issue with putting XLs in most larger mechs unless they have godlike hitboxes and a huge engine capacity.


Even a mech like the Victor with a 365 or 375 is still relatively easy to kill through ST destruction with an XL.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 March 2015 - 08:44 AM.

[Cruxs]

The big issue for me is the insta death from the blow out of a side torso IS XL. I think an easy fix would be a large speed decrease from a blown out side torso for IS XL engines, instead of dying. With that give clan mechs armor and structure upgrades.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 March 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Needs 25 % speed reduction too.

I was going to say, 20% or 20 km/h which ever is larger, once a side torso has been lost, and have it generate 1 heat/sec too..

for the IS, I would accelerate the time table on getting the LFE (Light Fusion Engine).

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

I think those two things would bring both sides more into balance with each other at this point.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 10 March 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Good write up.




The main issue here is that not all geometry is created equal, so if I can put a STD in any mech and get this benefit – mechs with superior geometry come out ahead.

Which was the original concept behind quirking specific mechs based on their overall rating (hardpoints, geometry, etc)




As for the higher heat cap and dissipation:

I like this idea for STD engines in general, not sure if 25% of each might be a bit too large.


Also, as above not all mechs are created equal.

I can stuff 20 to 24 DHS into a Stalker easily for energy boat builds - then I'd get additional cooling from the STD engine I have to take.

I can't get nearly as many DHS into an Atlas, because weapons like an AC 20 and multiple SRMs gobble up crit space.


So I think some boost for STD would be nice, but it should not be a replacement for quirks - rather an addition and adjustment to how quirks are handled.







IS XL is definitely in a very difficult place vs. Clan XL and obviously clearly inferior - especially on larger mechs.

I agree something needs to be done to prevent the easy kills they can present - however I would temper this with the fact that while Clan XL is clearly superior the stipulation is that it is locked to the mech.

I'm not exactly sure where to find the best balance point between outright superior design vs. customizability.

For everyone suggesting more nerfs to CXL side torso destruction.


It's a worthwhile idea to think about, but it doesn't address the actual issue with putting XLs in most larger mechs unless they have godlike hitboxes and a huge engine capacity.


Even a mech like the Victor with a 365 or 375 is still relatively easy to kill through ST destruction with an XL.

Which is why I support Quirking...but really have to wonder what the heck criteria they are really following? Because the original Tier Based System is pretty obviously NOT being used, considering the severity of quirks in some cases, and certainly not used consistently, by the wildly disparate percentages.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 March 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

Which is why I support Quirking...but really have to wonder what the heck criteria they are really following? Because the original Tier Based System is pretty obviously NOT being used, considering the severity of quirks in some cases, and certainly not used consistently, by the wildly disparate percentages.

I'm not sure to be honest.

At the start they seemed to have some clear rules on how much and how many for each mechs - even though that system had its inherent flaws (not all weapons are created equal, ECM/JJ mechs being double tax'd for these abilities, etc).


After that they seemed to be tweaking from there but not necessarily following the same guidelines - they are also somewhat mentally stuck in the old meta and have misjudged how some of the old kings perform in the current meta, etc.


Realistically there is such a huge variety of mechs, that this system and it's maintenance should be a team process with clear guidelines and rules. I don't believe they have a process like this in place though (not that I actually know at all, it's just my gut feeling).

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 10 March 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'm not sure to be honest.

At the start they seemed to have some clear rules on how much and how many for each mechs - even though that system had its inherent flaws (not all weapons are created equal, ECM/JJ mechs being double tax'd for these abilities, etc).


After that they seemed to be tweaking from there but not necessarily following the same guidelines - they are also somewhat mentally stuck in the old meta and have misjudged how some of the old kings perform in the current meta, etc.


Realistically there is such a huge variety of mechs, that this system and it's maintenance should be a team process with clear guidelines and rules. I don't believe they have a process like this in place though (not that I actually know at all, it's just my gut feeling).

About my read on it too. And hey, I'm all for ECM eating a quirk slot, but HoverJets? On some Clan Mechs, that's punishing them. And all their original tiers...those mechs had JJs or ECM when they were landed in their tier. (Though even who decided what was in what tier was mind boggling....... some dang good mechs were tier 5, lol)

But things like number of quirks, and what percentile equals a quirk, need to be stabilized. For instance if one mech gets a general ballistics boost boost of 12.5%....another that gets it at 25% needs to use two quirk slots to do so. And General Weapons Quirks need to cost more per percent than specialized ones, because General allows way more utility, than specific. Thus if 1 level of Ballistics tier is 12.5%, 1 Level of ac20 tier should be 25%. (And only allow one specific weapon system to be specialty quirked per variant)

Though I would prefer to see quirks in multiples of 10%, across the board, not 5%, 12.5%, 15%, etc.

And then they need to get away from just weapons and armor. Spiders should have JJ quirks, Ravens should have Sensor quirks, Brawler mechs should see twist rates improved, etc.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 March 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

About my read on it too. And hey, I'm all for ECM eating a quirk slot, but HoverJets? On some Clan Mechs, that's punishing them. And all their original tiers...those mechs had JJs or ECM when they were landed in their tier. (Though even who decided what was in what tier was mind boggling....... some dang good mechs were tier 5, lol)

But things like number of quirks, and what percentile equals a quirk, need to be stabilized. For instance if one mech gets a general ballistics boost boost of 12.5%....another that gets it at 25% needs to use two quirk slots to do so. And General Weapons Quirks need to cost more per percent than specialized ones, because General allows way more utility, than specific. Thus if 1 level of Ballistics tier is 12.5%, 1 Level of ac20 tier should be 25%. (And only allow one specific weapon system to be specialty quirked per variant)

Though I would prefer to see quirks in multiples of 10%, across the board, not 5%, 12.5%, 15%, etc.

And then they need to get away from just weapons and armor. Spiders should have JJ quirks, Ravens should have Sensor quirks, Brawler mechs should see twist rates improved, etc.

I'd also like to see quirks that favor more stock load outs, rather than meta... but that's me...

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 10 March 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

I'd also like to see quirks that favor more stock load outs, rather than meta... but that's me...

Well, for the most part, that is what some of us have managed to get Russ mostly pointed at. In the case of a few tragic underperformers, I have no issue with a "related" version of the stock weapon being quirked, a good example being the CPLT-K2. I would not cry if they slapped ERPPC quirks on it instead of PPCs, as that would allow it to run it's "stockish" type loadout, but without the egregious lack of close range firepower.

I would still prefer Weapon Family quirks, though, tbh.... Where if you got a let's say, 25% cooldown to a Large LAser, you got a 12.5% cooldown if you used a Large Pulse or ER LArge instead, since they were closely related to what the mech was engineered around in the first place, you know?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 March 2015 - 10:05 AM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

Well, for the most part, that is what some of us have managed to get Russ mostly pointed at. In the case of a few tragic underperformers, I have no issue with a "related" version of the stock weapon being quirked, a good example being the CPLT-K2. I would not cry if they slapped ERPPC quirks on it instead of PPCs, as that would allow it to run it's "stockish" type loadout, but without the egregious lack of close range firepower.

I would still prefer Weapon Family quirks, though, tbh.... Where if you got a let's say, 25% cooldown to a Large LAser, you got a 12.5% cooldown if you used a Large Pulse or ER LArge instead, since they were closely related to what the mech was engineered around in the first place, you know?

That I could get onboard with, having just swtiched sides to IS... and starting to get a collection of IS mechs, at the expense of my under used clan mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 10 March 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

That I could get onboard with, having just swtiched sides to IS... and starting to get a collection of IS mechs, at the expense of my under used clan mechs.

Was wondering what was up with that? Not CGBI anymore? Got a unit, or just dropping Davion for fun?