126 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Monkey Lover, on 13 June 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

Should be around 50%, 10% is nothing these clan mechs are running around 20% faster than other IS mechs their size to start with.

I agree there should be an extra penalty, but I don't agree with 50% speed loss because that's excessive.

[Khobai]

Another possible option is adding engine crits to the game.

Engines would have hitpoints (see below) and take crit damage like every other component in the game. Losing a side torso with an XL engine would result in your engine taking 20 damage.

IS XL engines would have 30 hitpoints
Clan XL engines would have 40 hitpoints

That would allow IS XL to survive a side torso destruction while still making CXL a tougher engine to take out.



But if PGI screwed that up it could drastically reduce TTK lol... so im not sure its the best idea.

Edited by Khobai, 14 June 2015 - 09:05 AM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

FupDup, on 13 June 2015 - 08:01 PM, said:

Actually, there are some Omnimechs like the Kingfisher and Stooping Hawk that do come with STD engines. They're pretty poopy because of it...

Man what is poopy about the Kingfisher? Its a max armored 90 tonner that moves at 60+ kph and has 24 tons of pod space, including several variants with ct hardpoints. Your looking at the ultimate zombie omni packing 2 CLPL or CERLL that won't go down until you put a stake thru it's heart .

[Milocinia]

I definitely agree with 50% speed loss simply because it's totally warranted.

I'm 100% neutral between clammers and spheroids but for a Spheroid to be STD engine carries a massive weight penalty, almost too much to mitigate in the grand scheme of balancing. Clammers have an XL by default but will survive 1x ST blowout but not 2x.

Still though, despite locked engine types I think that (in the grand overall balance of things) the Clams have the overall advantage.

I truly do think (when it comes to 1:1 balancing) that IS needs a knees up.

[kapusta11]

Since clan XL engines essentially have no penalties whatsoever, I mean speed loss and immediate heat generation that might shut you down, why not? You follow the other rules but don't want to follow this one? Sounds like hypocrisy.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Clan mechs typically run higher rated engines, so a good way to balance would be to increase the agility bonus of IS engines at a given rating.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Pjwned, on 13 June 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

I agree there should be an extra penalty, but I don't agree with 50% speed loss because that's excessive.

Maybe instead of a straight speed loss, losing a side torso with a CXL could give you other penalties, like reduced torso twist speed, reduced acceleration/deceleration, maybe increase to the cooldown for energy weapons due to loss of power? Would leave legging as a legitimate tactic to reduce speed, but still giving clans some downside to losing a third of their engine.

[Stelar 7]

Mister D, on 13 June 2015 - 07:18 PM, said:

What would be the point of STD engines then?

I hear what you're saying, and IS will eventually get Light Fusion engines that will be exactly like Clan-XL.

I don't think you'll ever get PGI to even acknowledge the thought of making standard XL's work like that though, even with as much balance as it could bring to the game.

I'm game for the IS light engines, or a buff to IS XL so side torsos don't kill. I think easing some of the restrictions on clan tech would be fine then too, or implement something cool like each clan er has three builds, and the can pick 1 if the 3 while we are waiting to start the match, that would feel like omni mechs.

However claiming it would be the death of standard engines is just ignorant. Do you decry the death of standard heat sinks?

Finally, there was a penalty for engine hits, and it was heat. Clan mechs that lose a side torso, and IS mechs if they get a buff, should gain heat. How much, I leave to the play testers and debs. An amount that is nont ritual, but also non instant death should be identifiable.

[Milocinia]

To be fair, losing a ST is really noticeable when it comes to heat. Anyone who doesn't think so should drive an unquirked IS chassis.

I still support a 50% speed loss for clam mechs though.

[InspectorG]

Then give Clans a C-STD Engine.
75% the weight of an IS STD. No ST slots.

Zombie Clans would be nasty...well the ones that dont have all their guns in their arms at least.

[Pjwned]

Tincan Nightmare, on 13 June 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

Maybe instead of a straight speed loss, losing a side torso with a CXL could give you other penalties, like reduced torso twist speed, reduced acceleration/deceleration, maybe increase to the cooldown for energy weapons due to loss of power? Would leave legging as a legitimate tactic to reduce speed, but still giving clans some downside to losing a third of their engine.

I don't see how a speed loss (not 50%) is unwarranted though and I also don't see how a speed loss from engine damage would make legging less useful as long as the engine penalty wasn't too high.

[Khobai]

Quote

I don't see how a speed loss (not 50%) is unwarranted though and I also don't see how a speed loss from engine damage would make legging less useful as long as the engine penalty wasn't too high.

Because the game already has a serious bias towards torso damage. It needs to encourage people to shoot OTHER locations.

It makes far more sense to increase the speed penalty for losing a leg. Then theres more reason to shoot legs. That is what we want.

We dont want more reasons to shoot side torsos.

[One Medic Army]

Tincan Nightmare, on 13 June 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

Maybe instead of a straight speed loss, losing a side torso with a CXL could give you other penalties, like reduced torso twist speed, reduced acceleration/deceleration, maybe increase to the cooldown for energy weapons due to loss of power? Would leave legging as a legitimate tactic to reduce speed, but still giving clans some downside to losing a third of their engine.

Actually instead of speed loss, I'd vote for reduced cooling rate (from remaining DHS), or increased weapon cooldown.

[Khobai]

You already lose half your internal DHS plus all the DHS in the side torso and arm. Its already severe. How much more of a penalty do you want on cooling?

I would rather see something like engine crits added. Part of the problem with not having engine crits is you have to fully destroy both side torsos to take out the engine. Where in tabletop a clan mech can die if it has one destroyed side torso and then its engine suffers a critical hit.

It would also give crit weapons like MGs and LBX a way to kill by crit damage. And those weapons have needed a buff for a while.

Edited by Khobai, 13 June 2015 - 08:53 PM.

[FupDup]

One Medic Army, on 13 June 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Actually instead of speed loss, I'd vote for reduced cooling rate (from remaining DHS), or increased weapon cooldown.

Maybe a little bit of various things, rather than just a single huge value in one area?

[Poisoner]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 13 June 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

Clan mechs typically run higher rated engines, so a good way to balance would be to increase the agility bonus of IS engines at a given rating.

How about PGI quits tying agility to engine size altogether?

[FupDup]

Poisoner, on 13 June 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

How about PGI quits tying agility to engine size altogether?

This should absolutely happen no matter what we do with Clan vs IS engine balance.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 13 June 2015 - 08:45 PM, said:

You already lose half your internal DHS plus all the DHS in the side torso and arm. Its already severe. How much more of a penalty do you want on cooling?

Haven't you noticed yet? No penalty is enough unless it outright kills the Clan Mech, or makes it practically so.

In the mean time, I'll go butcher some poor souls in the solo queue to vent ...

Edited by Mystere, 13 June 2015 - 08:48 PM.

[Armorine]

how about NO. this would be a MASSIVE buff to the IS. im an IS pilot and even i can see how damageing this would be to balance. there needs to be a trade off for going XL. a good chunk of my mechs run xl's. as they sit its usualyworth the risk of a blowout.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 13 June 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

Sigh! Clan Mechs do not have a choice that they are faster because they have fixed engines. Maybe Clan Mechs should also have the same level of customization as IS. What do you think?



Sigh! Screw the IP then. Maybe MWO should just be shut down and replaced with a generic shooter with walking tanks. That should fix things.

Have you ever considered that the IP itself might be wrong? There are a few "oops" moments in the IP that they had to band-aid over with new TROs or fluff inclusions to explain the discrepancy. The LB-10X is the only LB that is lighter and longer-ranged than its AC counterpart, for example, because they realized how broken that would be if applied to the entire range. They even had to completely redo Battle Value because the old system was not tuned for the lop-sided tech bases, and as far as I've read the 2.0 system still isn't quite up to the task.

Besides, MWO already is a generic mech shooting game. The only true BattleTech-related items are the 'Mechs and the item names. There's no story here, no asymmetrical warfare, no lore-consistent player or equipment behavior, and there won't be any. Live with it, enjoy what it does right, and let the game be made the best for what it is instead of trying to bend it into something it will not ever be.

With that out of the way, I have a big, fat NO to making IS XL behave identically to CXL. That's super lame.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 13 June 2015 - 08:51 PM.