183 replies to this topic

[Fleeb the Mad]

Making IX XL engines more survivable would be a huge boon to IS lights and mediums, which have to live with the risks because they can't afford to go with standard engines in the era of Clan heavies.

If the coming fixes to hit registration are effective they may actually need it.

I'm a bit wary about making it more feasible for IS heavies and assaults to use them though, since it will mean a fairly substantial increase in firepower. The tradeoff in survivability was always the biggest balancing factor preventing them from being used everywhere. If it doesn't cause instant death, well, if you've lost a bunch of weapons anyway it's entirely a net gain. More XL use, more guns on the field, lower TTK.

As far as the Clans go, with the coming of the IIC mechs there will be zero reason to use a standard engine. A 20% heat penalty is trivial for a mech that's lost a bunch of its weapons but enjoys either running circles around its IS equivalents or packing vastly more firepower.

No, you do it in the spirit of the original and make it hurt more to run XL engines of any sort. You take out half those engine heat sinks and encourage people to carry external more external DHS at the expense of more weapons.

[Greenjulius]

With the current state of the game, I support XL standardization for IS XL engines to mimic clan mech's single side torso survivability.

It would fix the single largest disparity between IS and clan mechs, and would allow for us to move on instead of figuring out how to nerf clan mechs to the point where they are "more fair." The folly in these nerfs is that the meta will just shift to the next mech, and the next, ad infinitum. That's what's happening now with the Ebon Jag and Hellbringer. People are running them more now than Timbers and Crows so they can avoid the duration/cooldown nerfs, and continue laser vomiting.

We've already deviated significantly from source battletech tabletop rules. Older Mechwarrior games completely ignored IS XL rules from what I can recall, and it didn't make them any worse.

Fleeb the Mad, on 05 July 2015 - 12:00 PM, said:

I'm a bit wary about making it more feasible for IS heavies and assaults to use them though, since it will mean a fairly substantial increase in firepower. The tradeoff in survivability was always the biggest balancing factor preventing them from being used everywhere. If it doesn't cause instant death, well, if you've lost a bunch of weapons anyway it's entirely a net gain. More XL use, more guns on the field, lower TTK.

I think quirks need to go away at this point, or damage values need lowered. I agree that TTK is so low now that the game is suffering for it. The meta will always build around weapons that kill quickly, like high alpha laser vomit or 2xGauss+other garbage. It's a very odd occurrence to see players bringing a diverse loadout. Sadly, I don't see it changing.

Edited by Greenjulius, 05 July 2015 - 12:08 PM.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

You realize that is actually part of the BT Universe as well right?

How many Mixtech mechs existed to abuse the best of both worlds and are part of the canon? Sure they are limited in number but you can't get away with limited supply of ultimate power in a PvP game.....

Then advocate for mixtech. Honestly, once the IIc mechs come into play, that might be the only surefire way to balance things.

ALL engines die from 3 critical hits. Advocate for a better critical hit system. I like the speed and heat penalty ideas, advocate for that.

Just please don't change things from the BT universe that do not need to be changed.

[Kristov Kerensky]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

You realize that is actually part of the BT Universe as well right?

How many Mixtech mechs existed to abuse the best of both worlds and are part of the canon? Sure they are limited in number but you can't get away with limited supply of ultimate power in a PvP game.....

I'm fully aware of the Mixed Tech Mechs in BTech, and how they are totally fubar and break the game even more than it was already broken to begin with, thank you Jihad/Dark Ages!

And for excellent examples of EXACTLY how that works, go play MW3 or MW4 which were both Mixed Tech and were both called by everyone nothing but gunbag games because there was no distinction between Clan or IS or between Mechs due to the Mixed Tech, even with the hardpoint system MW4 had, it served no purpose but to limit EXACTLY which Mechs you boat the most of any given weapon type with within a Class range, you could still boat whatever weapon type you wanted in each Class, thank the gods for Mixed Tech, right!

Yeah, and we all know exactly how popular and profit making THOSE 2 MW titles were, don't we, SO awesome that it was a FREAKING DECADE before we saw another MW title.

So, lets try and avoid that mistake shall we? Some of us do NOT like repeating the screw ups that history shows us, and we'll kindly ask the idiots who do enjoy that to STFU.

[Gyrok]

Pjwned, on 05 July 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

The thing is that LFEs should be implemented and cXL engines should be nerfed to have an actually appropriate penalty that does anything, and LFEs would have the same penalty.

The penalty already does something...why should CXL engines be nerfed if the IS has equivalent tech, and the omnimechs with locked engines already suffer tremendous penalties in customization. Unless you are willing to allow omnimechs to unlock engines, endo, and ferro.

If you are willing to do that...then my soon to be 71 kph TW with 35 tons of pod space after JJs will be waiting with salivating jaws to reign in the day that is kosher.

[Greenjulius]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

Yeah, and we all know exactly how popular and profit making THOSE 2 MW titles were, don't we, SO awesome that it was a FREAKING DECADE before we saw another MW title.

So, lets try and avoid that mistake shall we? Some of us do NOT like repeating the screw ups that history shows us, and we'll kindly ask the idiots who do enjoy that to STFU.

I don't think the reasons you listed are the reason for Mechwarrior games being pushed to the wayside. Both games were critically successful and made enough money to warrant expansions and sequels. They just weren't profitable enough (see: Billion dollar console games) to continue to get funding from the publishers. Do you really think deviation from the TT rules is what made them niche games?

It's the subject matter, the gameplay and the knowledge needed in order to understand how to play that doomed Mechwarrior to be a niche set of titles.

Mechwarrior is not Call of Duty, Battlefield, or any of the other "easy to get into" titles that attract kids today. And that's what pushes the industry; popularity and ease of access. That's why the mobile gaming market is ENORMOUS, and why console game sales still outweigh PC game sales.

Simulators nearly died in the early 2000s. Do you remember how popular they were in the 90's? They've only made a resurgence in the past 5 years because the hardcore PC gaming market has finally woken up and started buying these games again.

Edited by Greenjulius, 05 July 2015 - 12:24 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

I'm fully aware of the Mixed Tech Mechs in BTech, and how they are totally fubar and break the game even more than it was already broken to begin with, thank you Jihad/Dark Ages!

.....

So, lets try and avoid that mistake shall we? Some of us do NOT like repeating the screw ups that history shows us, and we'll kindly ask the idiots who do enjoy that to STFU.

So you select pieces of the BT universe that you feel are fine and ignore the rest? Interesting.

Whether you like it or not, Jihad is part of the BT universe, sorry if you are a 3025 purist, but Jihad is as much BT as the Succession Wars era is.

As for other things interesting, you do realize you can have the same tech and faction can still have different play styles/feel to them right? If you need proof just restrict yourself to assignment tables and play strictly IS. Doesn't matter what timeline, there is more to diversity between factions than normalized engines.

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Just please don't change things from the BT universe that do not need to be changed.

You havn't given sufficient reason it does not need to be changed other than "because TT".

The reason it does need to be changed in some way? Balance.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 July 2015 - 12:25 PM.

[Eider]

kapusta11, on 05 July 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

CXL is essentially a STD engine for half weight and increased accel/decel rate. With no info about enemy mech the fastest way to bring it down is by shooting CT, if you know it has ISXL engine it's ST. CXL doesn't change your/enemy's behaviour, there's no point shooting ST unless you're sure the opponent's using asymmetric loadout, the type of engine is not imprtant now. Cureent heat penalty for CXL engines is managable since you lose half of your loadout thus half you heat generation and. If you used sword and board build you pay the price for the advantage gained. Fair compared to STD engine, not really compared to ISXL.

In TT losing ST with CXL would generate 20 heat (10 for each engine crit lost) with much lower "heat cap" compared to what we have right now and probably shut you down. in addition you'd lose movement point or two, need to double check it, 1 MP = engine performance loss equal to mech's tonnage, so Timberwolf with -1 MP would move as if it had CXL300. -2 MP - CXL225.

Don't know what to do - follow the rules.

And please don't mention PoorDubs mechs, they above all else can be fixed with quirks.

See now those rules sound fair for having a clan xl.

[Greenjulius]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

You havn't given sufficient reason it does not need to be changed other than "because TT".

The reason it does need to be changed in some way? Balance.

Sometimes, I think that TT purists don't realize we're not playing TT. The rules simply don't translate to an action game. In fact, they straight up suck when it comes to balance. We need to come up with a solution that involves keeping all of the important elements of BT, while making gameplay and balance superior by coming up with a system that works. Currently, the system is convoluted but works, however with significant balance issues.

Edited by Greenjulius, 05 July 2015 - 12:29 PM.

[Gyrok]

Eider, on 05 July 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

See now those rules sound fair for having a clan xl.

When your LFE has the same penalties will it be fair too...or will you all ask for some other set of rules for it?

[Sjorpha]

I agree the engines needs balancing, but I wouldn't like removing the flavour difference that is currently there.

So I'm against IS XL surviving a ST loss, I would rather see some other kind of buff. If it was up to me, I'd simply make IS XLs save more weight than Clan, I think it makes sense that the bigger more fragile engine saves more weight. But since that might be a too big break with the canon, I could see a buff to ST internal structure instead, or perhaps an agility boost.

I also think the standard engine should come with a significant buff to CT internal structure, to encourage zombie builds. There are way too few viable zombies in the current metagame, which is a damn shame.

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

When your LFE has the same penalties will it be fair too...or will you all ask for some other set of rules for it?

LFE are singificantly worse than Clan XL, as they save 25% less weight. Obviously they should have a little less penalties to match that.

[Gyrok]

Sjorpha, on 05 July 2015 - 12:33 PM, said:

I agree the engines needs balancing, but I wouldn't like removing the flavour difference that is currently there.

So I'm against IS XL surviving a ST loss, I would rather see some other kind of buff. If it was up to me, I'd simply make IS XLs save more weight than Clan, I think it makes sense that the bigger more fragile engine saves more weight. But since that might be a too big break with the canon, I could see a buff to ST internal structure instead, or perhaps an agility boost.

I also think the standard engine should come with a significant buff to CT internal structure, to encourage zombie builds. There are way too few viable zombies in the current metagame, which is a damn shame.



LFE are singificantly worse than Clan XL, as they save 25% less weight. Obviously they should have a little less penalties to match that.

But IS mechs can change endo/ferro.

LFE + Endo = CXL

Most Clan omnimechs do not have endo.

Edited by Gyrok, 05 July 2015 - 12:35 PM.

[Greenjulius]

Sjorpha, on 05 July 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

I agree the engines needs balancing, but I wouldn't like removing the flavour difference that is currently there.

So I'm against IS XL surviving a ST loss, I would rather see some other kind of buff. If it was up to me, I'd simply make IS XLs save more weight than Clan, I think it makes sense that the bigger more fragile engine saves more weight. But since that might be a too big break with the canon, I could see a buff to ST internal structure instead, or perhaps an agility boost.

I also think the standard engine should come with a significant buff to CT internal structure, to encourage zombie builds. There are way too few viable zombies in the current metagame, which is a damn shame.

This is actually a great point. I'd love to see more variety on the battlefield, and buffed STD engines would definitely bring that. As they are currently, they only make sense with the few mechs who have tiny CTs and big STs, like the Stalker, Atlas and Centurion. You have to live with significantly lower firepower and compromises, so CT buffs on top of that would really make for some great pushers and brawlers. It would also solve the "squishy atlas" issues we have now.

I REALLY like this idea.

Edited by Greenjulius, 05 July 2015 - 12:36 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

LFE + Endo = CXL

LFE + Endo =/= CXL

To mount a 300 LFE and equal a CXL, you mech has to be 95+ tons. Ignoring the critical space difference as well.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 July 2015 - 12:39 PM.

[Eider]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

When your LFE has the same penalties will it be fair too...or will you all ask for some other set of rules for it?

I will be fine because atm im playing with xls that risk killing me if a torso is taken out or stds that go slow. Why would i complain about having something on par with clans?

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

You havn't given sufficient reason it does not need to be changed other than "because TT".

The reason it does need to be changed in some way? Balance.

Actually the reason is that if it can be balanced WITHOUT deviating from the very game they base MW:O on, then they should not change those rules. IMO, most of what is broken about this game is BECAUSE they deviated from BattleTech so much.

Greenjulius, on 05 July 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Sometimes, I think that TT purists don't realize we're not playing TT. The rules simply don't translate to an action game. In fact, they straight up suck when it comes to balance. We need to come up with a solution that involves keeping all of the important elements of BT, while making gameplay and balance superior by coming up with a system that works. Currently, the system is convoluted but works, however with significant balance issues.

Sometimes I think CoD kiddies think that all mecha games are super cool and want them to all be the same.

The rules DO actually translate to a FPS game, but too many twitchy shortcuts have been taken. Maybe some people are not bright enough to figure out how to translate the rules properly?

How can the system be "convoluted" AND WORK, "with significant balance issues"?
Is that like being tall, and short?

[Sjorpha]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

LFE + Endo = CXL

Are you serious?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

Actually the reason is that if it can be balanced WITHOUT deviating from the very game they base MW:O on, then they should not change those rules. IMO, most of what is broken about this game is BECAUSE they deviated from BattleTech so much.

You keep telling yourself that, but BT is balanced more like an RTS than a FPS. Things like BV and mechs like the Ostscout become problems when put into an FPS. Also while BV tries to keep things in check, it is still far from perfect and the cheese is very much real in TT (meaning TT is not perfect either).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 July 2015 - 12:54 PM.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

You keep telling yourself that, but BT is balanced more like an RTS than a FPS. Things like BV and mechs like the Ostscout become problems when put into an FPS. Also while BV tries to keep things in check, it is still far from perfect and the cheese is very much real in TT (meaning TT is not perfect either).

I never claimed TT was perfect. Nor was it symetrically balanced.
But I believe a first person battlemech sim CAN be done without breaking BattleTech rules.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

I never claimed TT was perfect. Nor was it symetrically balanced.
But I believe a first person battlemech sim CAN be done without breaking BattleTech rules.

You do realize most if not all successful FPS games ARE symmetric right? That is why BT rules are never fully translated nor is BV and is the reason things HAVE to get changed to achieve balance.