183 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 16 August 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

MW4 made Omnimechs and Battlemechs a mostly fluff difference instead of gameplay difference (except for a few Omni hardpoints here and there)...I kind of like different construction types for "flavor" (not saying that MWO's exact system is perfect ATM).

Well, there did exist a mod created specifically for a planetary league that had multiple variants for several chassis (Omni's included). The only difference between the two being as far as the league was concerned, for non-omnis, if you didn't have that specific variant in your defense/attack, you couldn't take it, but if it was an omni, any variant was legal. Basically Omnis ended up being easier on logistics like they should be and that's about it. I preferred that approach simply because it kept certain variants in check (like the Timber Wolf S) and still allowed omnis to have their logistical advantage.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 02:49 PM, said:

stuff

The current dynamic doesn't really embolden player choice. Sure it has the illusion of choice, but when you factor in engine limits, weight, and hitboxes, the viable choices end up being severly limited. In general it is more of a noob trab like single heat sinks than something that actually increases player choice.

The fact that hitboxes are largely what contribute to a mech being "XL friendly" is a silly dynamic imo because it ruins the possibility of player choice. Hitboxes should be as determinate as they are on things like that, and changing what factors as an engine's "durability" would do wonders for that and at the same time reduces the noob trap that would be an XL engine in an assault or a standard engine in a light (though the latter would still be pretty bad).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 16 August 2015 - 04:22 PM.

[Sjorpha]

WM Quicksilver, on 16 August 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

And my problem with that idea is this:

• The IS XL engine is the only engine that dies through side torso destruction, and death is harsher than any penalties you can stack on a mech. Sure you can close the gap, but it is still not equivalent.

It's only harsher than any penalties you can stack on side torso loss, but that isn't the only option for nerfing Clan XL.

For example you could make Clan XL significantly less agile than IS XL, with less torso twist and turning speed and worse acceleration. Agility is very important in MWO for using cover and spreading damage, so I think making clan mechs more sluggish to control could easily be enough to balance side torso survival.

Or something else. I see a lot of different ways to go about it, not very impressed by the kind of argument that assumes things can't be done or can only be done in a certain way.

I stand by my position that buffing IS XL is a bad idea, because it creates a need to buff IS std to not make that obselete, and then clan std to compete with clan XL, and then LFEs once introduced to make them compete with the buffed XLs and stds. That's a vicious cycle creating a need for a whole spiral of changes just to fix one problem, and then you have to tweak all of them again if you get it wrong.

it's much better to attack the problem where it is actually located, which is in the Clan XL, then you only need to change one peice of equipment instead of at least 4.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

Or something else. I see a lot of different ways to go about it, not very impressed by the kind of argument that assumes things can't be done or can only be done in a certain way.

There is much irony in this statement btw.

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

I stand by my position that buffing IS XL is a bad idea, because it creates a need to buff IS std to not make that obselete, and then clan std to compete with clan XL, and then LFEs once introduced to make them compete with the buffed XLs and stds. That's a vicious cycle creating a need for a whole spiral of changes just to fix one problem, and then you have to tweak all of them again if you get it wrong.

Like the suggested changes are any different? They all necessitate a significant change to one or more engines (including the LFE), the differences are in how the changes impact gameplay.

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

it's much better to attack the problem where it is actually located, which is in the Clan XL, then you only need to change one peice of equipment instead of at least 4.

Depends on the what the desired gameplay is like, if the higher end matches have the desired pace of a match, then you should buff the under performers up. Sure one is easier, but that does not mean it is the right way to go all the time.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 16 August 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

=Bad Idea Incoming=
what if we,... Doubled the Amount of Internal HeatSinks allowed in STD Engines?
than people that are going more laser weapons could,... get more heat sinks,...
(didnt think this through but posting on Principle )
Edit-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 August 2015 - 07:48 PM.

[Pjwned]

WM Quicksilver, on 16 August 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

The current dynamic doesn't really embolden player choice. Sure it has the illusion of choice, but when you factor in engine limits, weight, and hitboxes, the viable choices end up being severly limited. In general it is more of a noob trab like single heat sinks than something that actually increases player choice.

There's still plenty of choice depending on what build you use though, and it wouldn't really change that much with LFEs implemented assuming they were properly balanced. Of course you would see people using them in various mechs, and in some cases the LFE might be a more dominant choice, but build variety would still leave things up to choice more often than not.

I noticed that your original reply mentioned clan battlemechs (IIC mechs) not really having much incentive to use clan standard engines, and while I do think that might be a bit of a problem, I don't see how it would be solved by changing the existing rules so drastically; frankly the problem is clan battlemechs themselves more than anything else as far as that's concerned.

Quote

The fact that hitboxes are largely what contribute to a mech being "XL friendly" is a silly dynamic imo because it ruins the possibility of player choice. Hitboxes should be as determinate as they are on things like that, and changing what factors as an engine's "durability" would do wonders for that and at the same time reduces the noob trap that would be an XL engine in an assault or a standard engine in a light (though the latter would still be pretty bad).

I don't see how it's good for the game to power creep the hell out of XL engines so that any mech can take it and still be durable with a huge amount of firepower. Conversely, if you want to make a somewhat gimmicky XL assault mech with quite a bit more firepower than usual, then I don't see the harm in that since it comes with a big enough tradeoff currently; I don't see it as a noob trap like SHS either (which you also mentioned originally) because you still get rather large weight savings for doing that unlike if you use SHS which is just garbage period.

Of course, most assault mech pilots would probably only take a LFE rather than an XL if they want more firepower because having such a fragile engine on a big mech is usually pretty dangerous, but even though there are less consequences for choosing the LFE (over the XL) there still are consequences of choosing it (over the STD) and that's not always worth the 25% weight savings, which is again affected by your build i.e choices that you've made.

Andi Nagasia, on 16 August 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

=Bad Idea Incoming=
what if we,... Doubled the Amount of Internal HeatSinks allowed in STD Engines?
than people that are going more laser weapons could,... get more heat sinks,...
(didnt think this through but posting on Principle )
Edit-

That's actually not such a bad idea if the rules for engines were to be changed around, but I would still rather see XL and STD engines stay as they are with cXL engines being nerfed and LFEs being implemented with the same penalty as cXL.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:

There's still plenty of choice depending on what build you use though, and it wouldn't really change that much with LFEs implemented assuming they were properly balanced. Of course you would see people using them in various mechs, and in some cases the LFE might be a more dominant choice, but build variety would still leave things up to choice more often than not.

When it comes to effective choices, no there isn't that much choice currently, and even with LFEs there wouldn't be. Sure you could mount an XL in a Stalker or Atlas, but you are hamstringing yourself for a minimal increase in firepower (since most should already be going close to max speed). Of course you still see people use them, but you won't see them among more experienced players because they sacrifice too much durability on mechs with giant side torsos. This is the illusion of choice I'm talking about, and is common among several mechs. The contrast between engines is and has been too stark. More often that not, the trade-off between standard versus XL is not actually firepower, that is a misconception. No, the trade-off is generally speed versus durability, and for what it is, LFE is the perfect mix without some sort of added penalty. If implemented now, it would be the better engine since it allows a significant increase in survivability (the jump from 1 to 2 torsos for death is huge) with a minimal loss in speed (well for non-lights). That is the crux of the problem, the context of survivability gained between the jump to each different engine. There is a difference between the gaps with the difference between the IS XL and the Clan XL as far as survivability goes being huge where as the difference between the Clan XL and the Standard is minimal. Thus why you are trying to come up with a convoluted system to counter-act these distinct differences between durability which do not math out quite right.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:

I noticed that your original reply mentioned clan battlemechs (IIC mechs) not really having much incentive to use clan standard engines, and while I do think that might be a bit of a problem, I don't see how it would be solved by changing the existing rules so drastically; frankly the problem is clan battlemechs themselves more than anything else as far as that's concerned.

No, its not, the problem is with the engines themselves, because twice the tonnage should offer a significant change in survivability, the problem is that it doesn't (and is highly situational and dependent on hitboxes), at least not enough to justify the extra tonnage.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:

I don't see how it's good for the game to power creep the hell out of XL engines so that any mech can take it and still be durable with a huge amount of firepower. Conversely, if you want to make a somewhat gimmicky XL assault mech with quite a bit more firepower than usual, then I don't see the harm in that since it comes with a big enough tradeoff currently;

The problem is that the trade-off is too large for most mechs, especially among coordinated teams. The difference is that you are trying to power creep just the durability so that it is more tangible and less determined by hitboxes. There won't be significant more firepower on the upper end because the Clans are unmatched, and they already have XLs. This just allows IS XL engine mechs to actually compete with Clan mechs on the durability side without the need for crazy quirks. It also buffs standard engines to give them a better ability to compete with the closed gap between the IS and Clan XLs.



One of the reasons I have suggested this change the past 3-4 years is because the durability that Standards are supposed to entertain is highly situational. The reason mechs like the Grasshopper with its wide CT is often a good mech to throw an XL on is because if you die 90% through CT shots even with good piloting practices, then your Standard will gain you nothing. Standards do nothing with regards to durability for mechs that have overly large CT hitboxes. On the opposite side of things, mechs like the Stalker with their giant side torsos die too easily with XL because of their hitboxes and make significant gains when shifting over to a Standard engine (low engine cap also helps).
This has been my problem with maintaining this mechanic from TT, the extra durability is highly situational meaning that the tonnage cost is not always justified. To me while this sort of trend is interesting, it definitely reduces VIABLE player choices because the trade-off is significantly different across mechs.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 16 August 2015 - 09:16 PM.

[cSand]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

And I see people still don't read the OP.

jeesuz what do you want from me?

[Pjwned]

WM Quicksilver, on 16 August 2015 - 09:09 PM, said:

When it comes to effective choices, no there isn't that much choice currently, and even with LFEs there wouldn't be. Sure you could mount an XL in a Stalker or Atlas, but you are hamstringing yourself for a minimal increase in firepower (since most should already be going close to max speed). Of course you still see people use them, but you won't see them among more experienced players because they sacrifice too much durability on mechs with giant side torsos. This is the illusion of choice I'm talking about, and is common among several mechs.

I'm just going to end up repeating myself here.

Quote

The contrast between engines is and has been too stark. More often that not, the trade-off between standard versus XL is not actually firepower, that is a misconception.

The contrast is not too stark because a large drawback is needed if you're going to save all that weight, it's that simple.

Quote

No, the trade-off is generally speed versus durability, and for what it is, LFE is the perfect mix without some sort of added penalty. If implemented now, it would be the better engine since it allows a significant increase in survivability (the jump from 1 to 2 torsos for death is huge) with a minimal loss in speed (well for non-lights).

The penalty would be incurred when losing 20% of the engine, like I've already said. If you don't think anything less than a huge, crippling penalty for losing 20% of the engine is good enough then you either underestimate the sort of penalty that's proposed or you overestimate the value of saving 25% tonnage on engines, and either way there's not much else I can say at this point because I've already given my examples & reasoning without there being much to actually respond to other than "no it isn't."

Quote

That is the crux of the problem, the context of survivability gained between the jump to each different engine. There is a difference between the gaps with the difference between the IS XL and the Clan XL as far as survivability goes being huge where as the difference between the Clan XL and the Standard is minimal.

You're right, and what do you know my suggestion addresses both of those issues at the same time.

Quote

Thus why you are trying to come up with a convoluted system to counter-act these distinct differences between durability which do not math out quite right.

It's not convoluted, it's pretty damn simple:

1. Nerf clan XL engines, this is not even remotely difficult to do.
2. Implement light fusion engines (LFE) so that IS mechs have more options; this is slightly more work but still simple in concept and is easily balanced by providing an engine that saves some weight while still having appropriate downsides.

Your idea is the one that's convoluted, changing core rules that have worked well enough until unbalanced clan XL engines came along, so of course rather than fixing the new & unbalanced piece of equipment we just have to power creep the hell out of everything in response, and that's stupid.

Quote

No, its not, the problem is with the engines themselves, because twice the tonnage should offer a significant change in survivability, the problem is that it doesn't (and is highly situational and dependent on hitboxes), at least not enough to justify the extra tonnage.

The problem is more that IIC mechs (will) exist when they shouldn't.

Quote

The problem is that the trade-off is too large for most mechs, especially among coordinated teams. The difference is that you are trying to power creep just the durability so that it is more tangible and less determined by hitboxes. There won't be significant more firepower on the upper end because the Clans are unmatched, and they already have XLs. This just allows IS XL engine mechs to actually compete with Clan mechs on the durability side without the need for crazy quirks. It also buffs standard engines to give them a better ability to compete with the closed gap between the IS and Clan XLs.

It's not power creeping durability when the penalty is high enough for losing a portion of the engine, I've said this enough times now and my response will continue to be the same.

[Duke Nedo]

Don't think I commeted directly on the OP here. I just like to say that I wholeheartedly support this direction. Changing IS vs clan tech balance will require a full revamp of all existing quirks, and as we all heard.... they are doing that now! Therefore there is a now-or-never opportunity right now to balance IS vs clan tech!

As for actual numbers, I'd just start with 20% ST loss nerf for clans (2 out of 10 crit slots destroyed) and a 25% ST loss nerf for IS (3 out of 12 crit slots destroyed). That's intuitive and makes sense. Clan XL engines will still be a bit better than IS XL engines and that is all fine. It doesn't remove the need for IS "blanket" quirks, but it reduces their amplitude by lots and lots!!

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

1. Nerf clan XL engines, this is not even remotely difficult to do.
2. Implement light fusion engines (LFE) so that IS mechs have more options; this is slightly more work but still simple in concept and is easily balanced by providing an engine that saves some weight while still having appropriate downsides.

@ the arguments for nerfing clan XL engine instead: I think that is a bad idea, because: Clans can't choose engine, they are stuck with clan XL on all Omnis. Better then meddle with IS XL, which is optional.

@ LFE: PGI are not "forced" to ever introduce them. I'd just leave that option open if there is a niche that needs to be filled. Not use it as an argument to stop a progressive change.

@ STD engines: I'd suggest giving the engine itself a significant durability buff. Both IS and clan STD engines.

Cheeers!

Edited by Duke Nedo, 17 August 2015 - 01:06 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

I'm just going to end up repeating myself here.

Seems to be going around...

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

The contrast is not too stark because a large drawback is needed if you're going to save all that weight, it's that simple.

On the worst case mechs, no, it doesn't make up for the weight save/use. Remember that the effect is dependent upon hitboxes, and the tonnage you gain/lose is not always worth it.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

You're right, and what do you know my suggestion addresses both of those issues at the same time.

And I'm telling you it won't, it simply mitigates the problem, it doesn't fix it.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

Your idea is the one that's convoluted, changing core rules that have worked well enough until unbalanced clan XL engines came along, so of course rather than fixing the new & unbalanced piece of equipment we just have to power creep the hell out of everything in response, and that's stupid.

It's only convoluted because you already understand the TT rules. They didn't work necessarily, there were still problems with them prior to Clans, the IS XL was the only engine to take with poptarting iirc and that was the last year long meta.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

The problem is more that IIC mechs (will) exist when they shouldn't.

Why? They are apart of the universe.

Pjwned, on 16 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

It's not power creeping durability when the penalty is high enough for losing a portion of the engine, I've said this enough times now and my response will continue to be the same.

And I'm telling you it has to be significant enough, which it won't be so long as the LFE and Clan XL are sharing the same penalty because of rigid holding onto of TT rules.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 August 2015 - 12:34 AM.

[Deathlike]

Duke Nedo, on 17 August 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

@ the arguments for nerfing clan XL engine instead: I think that is a bad idea, because: Clans can't choose engine, they are stuck with clan XL on all Omnis. Better then meddle with IS XL, which is optional.

That is going to change on the IIC (Clan Battlemech) variants.

That's not a valid excuse IMO. Clan XL needs some sort of additional nerf (preferably speed) when side torso destruction happens.

[Duke Nedo]

Oh yes, I thought speed nerf on ST loss was included in this, was assuming both dissipation and speed nerf on ST loss as part of the OP suggestion. What I commented on was someone above that suggested blanket nerfing all clan XLs instead of making IS XL survive a ST loss. So my point is that doing that could be really rough on the Omnis...

(will edit in a reference in the above post, cheers!)

Edited by Duke Nedo, 17 August 2015 - 01:05 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm not against it. Having IS suffer more severe movement and heat penalties would be a bit more fair to IS pilots in the current game we have to work with. It would be an extended death sentence because a badly wounded IS mech at half speed and higher heat is a hobbling target, but hey, better than being dead outright. It might buy you enough time to get a killing or crippling blow on an attacker before you die.

As for speed loss and mentioning slower lights (for Clan mostly). It would be nice if the effects of speed loss on a side torso loss was determined by the weight of the chassis. That way a light would suffer far less in speed than an Assault. Maybe determined similar to how top speed is determined. Have it a formula that looks at engine size vs chassis tonnage to determine how much a machine loses speed. Maybe a 35 tonner only loses 10% of it's top speed on average (speed tweak value), where an assault loses 30%?

Anyway, like the idea overall.

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 17 August 2015 - 12:37 AM, said:

That is going to change on the IIC (Clan Battlemech) variants.

That's not a valid excuse IMO. Clan XL needs some sort of additional nerf (preferably speed) when side torso destruction happens.

I've been rolling the idea around that a C-XL side-loss would cost two or three internal DHS and cause an increase in the heat-generated by movement before subtracting the dissipation.

The logic here is that what you are presumably losing is shielding and some other non-essentials, and exposing the core's inner-most shielding is going to cause greater thermal leak to the rest of the 'Mech under load and be compounded by the loss of some of those TruDubs.

So no speed nerf, but it is a considerable penalty to firepower sustainability, especially when firing on the move.

[Lugin]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 August 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

=Bad Idea Incoming=
what if we,... Doubled the Amount of Internal HeatSinks allowed in STD Engines?
than people that are going more laser weapons could,... get more heat sinks,...
(didnt think this through but posting on Principle )
Edit-

Compact Heat Sink can pull that off with all IS engine types.

-edit-
Yes, the number of sinks built into the engine is doubled, not in the article anymore though.

Tactical Operations, p316 said:

Compact Heat Sinks are added and allocated to BattleMechs in accordance with the standard ’Mech construction rules regarding heat sinks (see pp.53-54, TM). However, Compact Heat Sinks are small enough to fit up to 2 sinks in a single critical slot, rather than just 1. A ’Mech using Compact Heat Sinks also doubles the number of heat sinks that need not be allocated to its critical hits table (see p. 53, TM). The number of compact sinks assigned to a given slot beyond these “critical-free” sinks must be noted on the unit’s record sheet.

Edited by Lugin, 17 August 2015 - 08:49 AM.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2015 - 04:21 AM, said:

I've been rolling the idea around that a C-XL side-loss would cost two or three internal DHS and cause an increase in the heat-generated by movement before subtracting the dissipation.

The logic here is that what you are presumably losing is shielding and some other non-essentials, and exposing the core's inner-most shielding is going to cause greater thermal leak to the rest of the 'Mech under load and be compounded by the loss of some of those TruDubs.

So no speed nerf, but it is a considerable penalty to firepower sustainability, especially when firing on the move.

I'm OK with the idea, but the penalty has to be non-trivial, because people almost always shoot on the move with no/minimal heat penalty.

Basically, you have to generate significant heat past 50% or 66% max speed (including max reverse speed) as that would be similar to having lost that speed.. despite not having lost it at all in actuality.

The heat generation MUST BE non-trivial. Most players shoot on the move, so this is important.


However, I still prefer the speed loss.. only because TTK is actually reduced (Clan XL w/o any penalties is an increase in TTK in Clan Mechs)... similar to legging (although legging is a significant penalty). Speed loss does actually remove surviveability.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 August 2015 - 12:48 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 17 August 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

I'm OK with the idea, but the penalty has to be non-trivial, because people almost always shoot on the move with no/minimal heat penalty.

Basically, you have to generate significant heat past 50% or 66% max speed (including max reverse speed) as that would be similar to having lost that speed.. despite not having lost it at all in actuality.

The heat generation MUST BE non-trivial. Most players shoot on the move, so this is important.


However, I still prefer the speed loss.. only because TTK is actually reduced (Clan XL w/o any penalties is an increase in TTK in Clan Mechs)... similar to legging (although legging is a significant penalty). Speed loss does actually remove surviveability.

That is the idea; to make the heat-penalty non-trivial. The loss of three TruDubs plus whatever was in that side torso is pretty significant, especially considering how hot the weapons are and the fact that you can't really ever put DHS in the CT or legs on a Clan machine. If the loss of three TruDubs isn't enough, we can always bump it to four or five.

Decreased heat efficiency also indirectly forces players to move slower to keep the heat down.

TL;DR: losing a side is either going to make you slow or make you hot, but this solution gives the player the ability to choose which one it's going to be in a given situation.

[Veev]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 August 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

That is the idea; to make the heat-penalty non-trivial. The loss of three TruDubs plus whatever was in that side torso is pretty significant, especially considering how hot the weapons are and the fact that you can't really ever put DHS in the CT or legs on a Clan machine. If the loss of three TruDubs isn't enough, we can always bump it to four or five.

Decreased heat efficiency also indirectly forces players to move slower to keep the heat down.

TL;DR: losing a side is either going to make you slow or make you hot, but this solution gives the player the ability to choose which one it's going to be in a given situation.

Actually clan DHS fit nicely in the legs and CT. Dunno what else you are storing there, but at 2 slots a pop you can cram them just about anywhere. IS cannot put them in either of those places.

[Y E O N N E]

Veev, on 25 September 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

Actually clan DHS fit nicely in the legs and CT. Dunno what else you are storing there, but at 2 slots a pop you can cram them just about anywhere. IS cannot put them in either of those places.

Not when the legs and CT are filled with locked structure/armor slots (and sometimes equipment), as they usually are in this game.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 26 September 2015 - 01:25 PM.

[Veev]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

Not when the legs and CT are filled with locked structure/armor slots (and sometimes equipment), as they usually are in this game.

I am usually running a Hellbringer, so I do not have that problem. The joys of an omnimech.