103 replies to this topic

[Telmasa]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 13 September 2015 - 07:30 PM, said:

Small quibbles that can be dealt with individually with chassis specific quirks. Far better to balance for the broader case and adjust a few mechs with quirks than to have to buff pretty much everything else.

Any 'solution' that needs magic "Power Ranger" quirks in order to work is not a solution.

[MechaBattler]

Telmasa, on 17 September 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

Any 'solution' that needs magic "Power Ranger" quirks in order to work is not a solution.

Just because you say something isn't a solution. Doesn't make it so.

[Telmasa]

MechaBattler, on 17 September 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

Just because you say something isn't a solution. Doesn't make it so.

the world isn't burning
doesn't mean it isn't burning
clearly your logic is infallible and what I had to say from my own viewpoint was silly




Read between the lines: I want solutions to be found that do not rely upon magic, zero-trade-off, arbitrarily assigned Super Quirks.

[Goombah]

Locked engine sizes do litterally nothing to balance a chassis. You either have meta builds available to you, or you do not. You have op builds or you do not.
End of story.
The only thing locked engine sizes does is restrict the mech from shifting with the meta and being top tear as things change. Locked mechs are restricted to a smaller variety of meta builds. Easier for pgi to keep track of them.

If you don't think clan xl engines are massively op then you're ********.
Fortunately I don't think anyone here is trying to argue against that.

Everyone, including pgi, wants is and clan tech to be unique and have their own flavor, and I get that. I don't want everything to feel exactly the same.

The problem is, if you want to achieve anything remotely close to balance , each weakness has to be compensated by a strength. Every positive needs a negative to achieve asymmetric balance . There are plenty of competitive games out there with asymmetrical teams. League, hots, chivalry , evolve, he'll even asymmetric tf2 teams can have a fair fight. Starcraft.

Everyone is completely unwilling to compromise on this.
The general outcry seems to be
Is need weaker xl engines for flavor
Is need weaker guns for flavor
Is need heavier equipment for flavor

How is anything supposed to get better like this?
Short of making 12 vrs 8 matches , balance isn't going to occur with is gear being inferior at every turn.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure they could make is xl engines just as good as clan xl engines in order to make a massive step forwards to balance without ruining flavor. It's a ******* engine, we have bigger things to cry about.
Yes, some mechs are going to start bringing more guns.
Well guess what? All armor and structure was doubled in early beta. Double again would probably bring things into line just fine. Time to kill is way too short as is.

It's not power creep if it's compensated by something else. If is mechs don't get anew xl engine buff, they have to be compensated a different way, like massive offensive buffs or huge st armor quirks. As opposed to just buffing everyone's armor. Both ideas being stupid

There's ways to make the factions different. The goddamn engine is not the way.

[Andi Nagasia]

Balance and Flavor can be achieved with Faction Balance,
you want an Example IS-ACs vs Clan-ACs, both have a flavor,
both used differently, but each has a area they shine in,

[Tarl Cabot]

This seems fitting here, another thread, similar discussions.

Quote

Good arguments on both sides but as many have mentioned, for a good FPS game compromises need to be made. atm though many BT rules/construction have either not been carried over or have been modified, and some of those were done for an attempt to balance or curb certain types of game play.
PGI has already doubled the internal structure/armor (good in a FPS ?)
Heat Sinks and Heat Scale

Double HS vs SHS - true DHS with engine DHS, all other DHS = 1.4
In a game where the max Heat scale depends on SHS/DHS and how many (30base + SHS/DHS)
Currently no negative Heat Scale effects EXCEPT when a mech hits 100% (bad)

Introduction of Ghost Heat - Even with an modified Heat Scale w/neg effects, it is possible Ghost Heat may still be needed, simply not in its current magnitude
Standard vs IS XL engine

Even with the IS XL introduction, there still were not actual ENGINE crits, only Engine health to it in the center torso. With no real engine crits, no negative heat effects.
PGI made it so that with the loss of a side torso, a XL-equipped IS mech would die to give an "effect" of BT engine destroyed.
This also balanced out the effect of being more durable, slower and less weapons vs fragile, more weapons and or faster in an environment with no Clan mechs.
IS XL vs Clan XL

Clans are introduced with their equipment
Originally, with a Clan mech's one side torso destruction equipped with Clan XL, that mech only lost that side/arm, same as an IS mech equipped with a standard engine. A Clan mech is destroyed if the 2nd side torso is destroyed.
PGI did had a miserly heat effect if a Clan did lose a side torso later but rarely noticeable in most Clan mechs
Currently, only Clan Omni can not change their engine, nor hard locked items like heatsinks, nor add/remove Clan Ferro nor Endo components (7 slots vs IS's 14 slots)
Now, would anyone in their right mind actually remove their Clan XL engine? (chuckles)

Many would change the engine rating - I would propose Clans could change the engine rating but would have a narrower range of available engines on both the max and min. Start off with half the range of IS mechs
Ferro vs Endo - In the board game, both stock IS/Clan designs very rarely had MAX armor, and switching to Endo is similar to replacing the frame on a vehicle, just bulkier, time consuming and expensive, initially and repairing.

If a Clan mech came with either one, for MWO allow a player to switch from Ferro to Endo.
A Clan mech would not be able to remove both Ferro and/or Endo completely
For a mechwarrior and his mech in MWO, speed/maneuverability is life, followed by being durable enough to exploit a hole in the enemy's defenses and the firepower to being to bear.


The Battletech boardgame was designed to cover a limited area, with an average play time with each round lasting 10 seconds perform several actions, and the result of many of those actions depending on dice rolls, to hit/not to hit, where it hit, crit or not, defensive rolls, after effect rolls (due to damage done/heat effects). Solaris was even harsher, 2.5secs/round, fewer available actions and even harsher effects, particularly heat scale-wise and not meant to be played with several mechs but as a one on one.

MWO is more related to the Solaris game. You are controlling only one mech and tis weapons have different cooldown timers. If jumping can fire while air-borne. The major component missing between the two is no valid heatscale.

Notice the opponents to having a mech slow down, saying, let the mech but partially ignoring that continuously firing their weapons til they are almost max heatscale has no negative impact on their mech's movement. In BT being near the top of the heatscale results in a max of a negative 5 movement penalty, as well as a negative 4 in targeting penalty (in MWO, I would see this as the crosshair moving slower, regardless of mouse settings).

Via boardgame a timberwolf movement is 5(walk)/8(run). At near max heatscale, besides avoiding shutdowns (rolls), its speed would be reduced to 3 hexes (run) at 32kph.

With the suggestion of changing on engines work, their durability, etc for a FPS with pin-point firing, the question is why not?
IS Standard engine
lose one or both sides, no speed change, zombie with head/CT weapons
IS XL engine (1/2 weight IS Standard but takes up 6 crit slots combined in side torsos)

Continues with lost of only one side/destroyed with lost of both - either or both movement penalty / heat penalty
Clan XL engine (same weight as IS XL engine but takes up 4 crit slots combined in side torsos)

Lives/destroyed - Same as IS XL engine but lesser penalties
Clan Omni mechs have ability to change engine rating but within more restrictive range vs IS mechs
IS FLE/Fusion Light Engine (3/4 weight of IS Standard engine but takes up 4 crit slots in side torsos (like Clan XL)

Lives/destroyed - Same as Clan XL and with same Clan XL penalties
That would be my counter-proposal, which also includes the future IS FLE.

[Blaze32]

Pjwned, on 11 September 2015 - 09:55 PM, said:

That would be a way of doing it I guess, but it would also be insane power creep, and standard engines might as well not exist after that.

I do actually think LFEs should exist, but only if properly balanced, and then cXL engines would have the same penalty but still retain their weight advantage.

http://www.sarna.net..._Engine_-_Light just move up the timeline.....

[Blaze32]

Like in TT they should make it so that when clan mechs lose a Side Torso they should have a higher neutral heat (+10 heat in TT). This would translate to about 16% heat extra generated on the mech. This would make Clan mechs more balanced but still different from IS.

PS: never owned or ran a clan mech yet.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I really see no reason to add a new engine type to fill the role that a redefined version of a current engine could fill just as easily.

Let me express this again: the arbitrary difference in durability between IS and Clan XL Engines has no place in MWO.

The rational of having the Clans be vastly superior in all things cannot function in this game, seeing how as it is a real-time simulation.

Moreover (again), the logistical limitations that Clan equipment suffered in TT also cannot function in this game.

Thus, it is ridiculous that IS XL engines should be any less durable than Clan engines. I grant the crit space in the name of "Flavor".

(BTW, MWO is a simulator NOT an FPS and I don't know how anyone can really call it such; the only thing it has in common with FPS is 1st person).

[Pjwned]

Blaze32, on 20 September 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net..._Engine_-_Light just move up the timeline.....

The proposal was to give XL engines the same functionality as light fusion engines, i.e no death on side torso loss, and I disagree because of the massive power creep involved.

Blaze32, on 20 September 2015 - 06:23 PM, said:

Like in TT they should make it so that when clan mechs lose a Side Torso they should have a higher neutral heat (+10 heat in TT). This would translate to about 16% heat extra generated on the mech. This would make Clan mechs more balanced but still different from IS.

PS: never owned or ran a clan mech yet.

I don't think it's really appropriate to just overwhelm the mech with huge heat penalties, which is why I suggest a speed penalty instead of ramping up the heat penalty further, and additionally the +10 heat penalty was in a game where the heat threshold never went above 30, which is not the case in MWO so that same penalty wouldn't necessarily translate well enough to this game.

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 21 September 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

I really see no reason to add a new engine type to fill the role that a redefined version of a current engine could fill just as easily.

Let me express this again: the arbitrary difference in durability between IS and Clan XL Engines has no place in MWO.

The rational of having the Clans be vastly superior in all things cannot function in this game, seeing how as it is a real-time simulation.

Moreover (again), the logistical limitations that Clan equipment suffered in TT also cannot function in this game.

Thus, it is ridiculous that IS XL engines should be any less durable than Clan engines. I grant the crit space in the name of "Flavor".

(BTW, MWO is a simulator NOT an FPS and I don't know how anyone can really call it such; the only thing it has in common with FPS is 1st person).

There's nothing wrong with the role of the IS XL engine, and clan tech has its own balancing factors (such as restrictive construction rules for clan omnimechs or reportedly large negative quirks on clan battlemechs) to justify clan XL engines well enough, it's just that the clan XL engine itself isn't properly balanced and needs to be adjusted a bit.

It would be better to think of the clan XL as a more lightweight light fusion engine (with a different name) and giving the IS its own (heavier but still functionally the same) light fusion engine rather than throwing a fit about clan tech. Clan tech is mostly fine as it is, it just needs a couple tweaks (read: the thread topic) along with some not-too-drastic weapon re-balancing (on both sides for that matter) and things will be improved.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Pjwned, on 23 September 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

The proposal was to give XL engines the same functionality as light fusion engines, i.e no death on side torso loss, and I disagree because of the massive power creep involved.

I don't think it's really appropriate to just overwhelm the mech with huge heat penalties, which is why I suggest a speed penalty instead of ramping up the heat penalty further, and additionally the +10 heat penalty was in a game where the heat threshold never went above 30, which is not the case in MWO so that same penalty wouldn't necessarily translate well enough to this game.

There's nothing wrong with the role of the IS XL engine, and clan tech has its own balancing factors (such as restrictive construction rules for clan omnimechs or reportedly large negative quirks on clan battlemechs) to justify clan XL engines well enough, it's just that the clan XL engine itself isn't properly balanced and needs to be adjusted a bit.

It would be better to think of the clan XL as a more lightweight light fusion engine (with a different name) and giving the IS its own (heavier but still functionally the same) light fusion engine rather than throwing a fit about clan tech.  Clan tech is mostly fine as it is, it just needs a couple tweaks (read: the thread topic) along with some not-too-drastic weapon re-balancing (on both sides for that matter) and things will be improved.

I agree that most Clan tech is not a major problem, advantages and disadvantages on both side.


Mostly I hope this rebalance will bring viability to the majority of 'Mechs and diminish the overshadowing "Meta".


But, addressing the issue of the engine, specifically. I think we both agree something need to be done.


LFE, XLE; call it what you will, I'm just looking at function and the "why" of its functional difference. That "why" doesn't seem to exist in MWO; so I don't see any reason to bother making things more complicated. I live by "the simplest solution is usually the best".

[VorpalAnvil]

Pjwned, on 12 September 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

PGI themselves acknowledge that the current penalty for losing 20% of a clan XL engine isn't enough, they just didn't do anything about it because clan apologists came and made a flood of biblical proportions with their tears when an extra (appropriate) penalty was being considered for losing 20% of the engine.

Lol. Because PGI totally understands game balance issues, right?

[Kmieciu]

Telmasa, on 17 September 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

Any 'solution' that needs magic "Power Ranger" quirks in order to work is not a solution.

If your looking for the fastest, easiest to implement, easiest for the players to understand, and most "elegant" solution, then you have to make IS XL engines work exactly like clan engines.

CTRL+H in the XML file - find and replace sidesToDie="1" with sidesToDie="2".

Done.

Clan XL will still be superior to IS XLs (2 lesscrit slots), but the gap will be much much narrower.
Right now, there's a big difference between a dead mech (0 firepower), and half of a mech (which can retain up to 100% of its firepower)

Try explaining this to the new "steam" players. Tell them to buy an IS mech, then pay 3-6.5 million C-Bills for a new engine that makes you twice as likely to die then a stock Clan mech engine. Any reasonable person will choose clan mechs.

"But Clan engines are locked" is not really an argument, because:
1) We'll get IIC mechs soon - unlocked clan engines. Now try to balance IS Jenner against JennerIIC*
2) Best clan mechs already have the correct engine size.
3) Mechs with small locked engines (Kit Fox, MistLynx, Adder) can get small heat dissipation quirks to balance the lower "true" DHS number
4) Locked engines give the clan mechs some flavor. Without locked engines Timber Wolf would be straight up better than Ebon Jaguar.

/*in case of the Jenner IIC cXL will not be that much different than IS XL, unless PGI changes the hitboxes :-)

Edited by Kmieciu, 23 September 2015 - 11:46 PM.

[Redbackz]

SkyHammr, on 11 September 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

Actually, I want to see IS get CXL equivalent engines.
Just make all the IS XLs LFEs and call it done.

Seems fair.

Edited by Redbackz, 24 September 2015 - 03:40 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Clan XL doesn't need a nerf. There was a time when you could say the clan mechs were much, much better than their innersphere counter-parts. That time has passed, your're not advocating a balance, you're advocating the clan mechs to be made a worthless joke.

This. Nerfing CXL doesnt fix anything. Instead you just end up with both CXL and ISXL sucking. The worst part is clans cant choose not to use a suck engine and are forced into using the crappy nerfed CXL.

Plus theres the whole TTK issue. The game doesnt need lower TTK it needs higher TTK. Nerfing CXL = lower TTK which is not what we need. Buffing ISXL = higher TTK which is exactly what we want.

Better solution here is to buff ISXL to survive a side torso destruction. Then buff STD somehow so its still worth using.

Quote

But Clan engines are locked" is not really an argument, because:
1) We'll get IIC mechs soon - unlocked clan engines. Now try to balance IS Jenner against JennerIIC*
2) Best clan mechs already have the correct engine size.
3) Mechs with small locked engines (Kit Fox, MistLynx, Adder) can get small heat dissipation quirks to balance the lower "true" DHS number
4) Locked engines give the clan mechs some flavor. Without locked engines Timber Wolf would be straight up better than Ebon Jaguar.

1) Except getting IIC mechs still doesnt unlock the engine ratings on omnimechs. they are totally different things.

2) the best clan mechs dont actually have the "correct" engine sizes. In fact the timberwolf would much prefer a 350 engine over a 375 engine so it could use dual gauss/lasers. The 375 engine prevents it from dual gaussing effectively right now.

3) heat dissipation quirks are not going to make the kitfox good lol. its a light mech thats slow and the size of a 50 ton mech. it needs way more than heat dissipation lmao.

4) your flavor argument applies just as much to IS mechs as it does clan mechs. IS mechs would have much more flavor with locked engine ratings too. imposing "flavor" on clan mechs but not IS mechs is inconsistent and ridiculous.


Again the simple fix here is just make CXL and ISXL equal and be done with it. Nerfing CXL engines is a bad direction for the game as far as TTK goes. Buffing the ISXL makes far more sense and improves TTK which is what we need.

Edited by Khobai, 14 October 2015 - 11:37 PM.

[Old Fart]

if you are going to rebalance and have clan the same as IS , then ok. the engine that comes in the IS is the only one they get. reset all the armor, heat seeks, and the other equipment that can not be changed on Clans. if your going to do this ,are you going to allow clans to change our mechs , no more lock outs. Are you going to refund the players MC or C bills for the mechs your going to trash. I would love to see this Game do better lol.. in three years of playing this it has not happened. Clans have taken every nearf thrown at them, seen IS get lots added. PGI if you go down this path then you might ass well give up CW. there wont be any Clans left. Range has nothing to do with a mech that cant see more then 600 meters clearly. I miss the days of mech warrior 4. There was not any of these problems that PGI has made. There was lots of maps and fun times for all. PGI needs to look at ways of making things better for all, its not going to happen. Its all ready started Clains are going to merk unit sand IS, or there disappearing. Ive seen this first hand and its getting worse.

[Count de Monet]

seriously it doesn't matter what we want or suggest PGI will tend to follow the majority of the whiny players.
They tried to follow canon but all of those bitching sooks convince them to screw it up.

"OMG clan is way too OP". Of course it is, as it should always be, at least until 3058 timeline.
the fix for that- THERE IS NO FIX NEEDED-
Make it the way it should be 3x Lances of 4=12 IS mechs VS 2x Stars of 5=10 Clan mechs

the way everything is being screwed by all those complaining makes me want all my money back and to bid you all adieu

[Kerensky98]

Count de Monet, on 14 October 2015 - 08:59 PM, said:

Make it the way it should be 3x Lances of 4=12 IS mechs VS 2x Stars of 5=10 Clan mechs

This is what balanced IS vs Clan in the Table Top. Take off all the clan nerfs, but give them 2 less players.

Of course the other thing was that you couldn't modify IS mechs at all. Currently in MWO IS mechs can be customized more than Omnimechs. A Panther can sprint like a tiny hard to hit spider but nothing can be done to make the poor lumbering Barndoor/Adder target more manuverable.

[Ialdabaoth]

All engine crits are supposed to reduce heat dissipation by 0.5/s each - thus losing a side torso should cause a clan mech to lose 1.0/s of heat dissipation.

[Karyuudo]

I'd like to throw my two cents into this discussion on Clan XL Engines with respect to re-balancing. I've been a fan of BT and MW since MW2 and started out by playing the Table Top games for years. Having played TT, there was a very simple mechanic in place for when an engine of any kind took hits. The Heat Table. For many of you this is review. Please bear with me. This is mostly for the new community members and those who never played TT.

According to that Heat Table, any engine that took 2 critical hits (like a Clan XL engine when a Clan mech's side torso is cloven off) incurred a penalty of +10 heat at all times thereafter or until the mech is destroyed by a 3rd hit (like with IS XL engines). That +10 constant operational engine heat causes a mech to move slower by a value of 2 movement points. This is a constant for any Battlemech; regardless of their native speed range.

That said, I am suggesting that PGI consider using this simple table as a guide and design an in-game equivalent result in MWO for Clan mechs with XL engines who lose one of their side torsos. Note that, for the purposes of my suggestion I am going to say that +10 operational heat load is equivalent to losing the cooling efficiency of 5 Clan Dbl HS (even though we all know that such HS are not 2.0 cooling efficiency, they are currently 1.4), or 1/2 of the internal engine HS when an engine is large enough to hold 10 internal Dbl HS.

Losing a side torso as a Clan mech with an XL engine would thereby look something like this where 2 things will happen here. Clan mech pilots out there please note that, when an IS mech loses a side torso and has an XL, it completely dies. So I really do think the following is quite fair Keep that in mind:

1) A Clan mech running an XL engine will slow down at flanking speed.
-2 movement in TT can be equivalent to any mech in MWO dropping its flanking speed by somewhere between 18-24 kph. MASC will be affected as well. It will naturally become less effective.

2) The heat efficiency of a Clan mech running an XL engine will drop dramatically, reflecting the +10 constant heat load on the damaged engine. It will drop by the heat efficiency value of 5 Clan Dbl HS; whatever their individual heat dissipation be at the time (i.e. 1.4).

That's it. I'm suggesting it be that simple, and it's based off of Table Top rules, so there is an even and BT universe certified ground for this suggestion.