240 replies to this topic

[Gattsus]

Torso xl gone, mech gone. Full stop. Because of balance and IMHO flavour.
Clam torso xl gone, penalties seems appropriate, maybe heat and speed 30% (maybe 20 each) because of balance again.
Easy, direct and adjustable, few changes could be as clean and concise as this one.

Edited by Gattsus, 21 September 2015 - 06:55 AM.

[Dirus Nigh]

Pjwned, on 19 September 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

That would be rather powerful for a 0.5 ton 1 slot item

CASE isn't as useful as it should be because ammo explosions are implemented terribly, there's no need to give it extra functionality like protecting the component it's stored in despite that not being how CASE functions at all.

Clan mechs have CASE in every location for FREE. IS mechs as it is right now, have to pay .5 tons, and a crit slot for it. IS can only use it in the side torso. SO no it is not unreasonable when compared to clan CASE and XL engines.

[Tombstoner]

MeiSooHaityu, on 21 September 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

If the IS XL can survive a side torso loss outright, then it will pretty much obsolete the STD engine. Like I have said, the only performance reason a STD engine is taken is to survive one side torso loss. If an XL will do that, there is no reason to take a STD engine other than cost.

I do not agree. Speed = life in MWO. A simple 90% reduction in movement speed 75% torso change for the loss of a single torso is effectively leaving you dead on your feet. if your lucky you can limp back into cover. However your combat capability is clearly reduced. depending on your build you lost at least 50% of your alpha, your still capable of making a kill, but your really just a walking stat point. where as with a standard you got full movement. your more durable.

clan tech being better translates into no movement/ twist penalty for loss of side.

Speed penalties for damage/heat is an untapped balance tool PGI has never really explored. COD doesn't have it. Its about time it get used for something.

You need to go heavy on the initial speed change, because its better to over nerf and buff later then to make a series of nerfs. it makes the players less mad.

[Lykaon]

MeiSooHaityu, on 21 September 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

If the IS XL can survive a side torso loss outright, then it will pretty much obsolete the STD engine. Like I have said, the only performance reason a STD engine is taken is to survive one side torso loss. If an XL will do that, there is no reason to take a STD engine other than cost.

Now, if an IS XL will survive the loss, then maybe other things may need to balance it more to offset that durability and still allow the IS STD engine to be a possible choice.

I'm thinking a damage to remaining torso internals upon a side torso loss. If the IS XL suffers a side torso loss, the remaining internals would suffer an additional 50% loss of remaining health. No weapons, equipment, or ammo would suffer possible crit damage, just the remaining internal points are reduced by 50%.

That might be a possible solution. Really an IS mech should be dead, so crippled internals (despite being undesirable), is still additional life with a chance to put down firepower you otherwise wouldn't have.

Just an idea I was tossing around in my head.

Or,we could just give a reason for taking a standard engine (other than if you want an AC20 in a side torso Mauler,Atlas,Hunchback,Misery etc can't use both an AC20 and an XL)

So if say we did one simple change to all engines,like increase the 3 critical hits up to 4 then now an I.S. XL engine survives a side torso destruction.

But now you ask why take a Standard engine and this is a valid point to make.

So,how about this.

Standard engines have two buffs.

1) each critical slot occupied by a standard engine has it's health threshold increased.If say an XL engine has 20 health per crit slot occupied (and I believe this is how it works now) than an standard engine gets let's say 40 health per crit slot occupied.

2) Mechs equipped with a standard engine also receive a CT structure buff of XX%. (specific values undetermined but it has to be significant)

This should mean that in practice the standard engine will not likely ever receive 4 engine critical hits before the CT structure is depleted and that CT structer is enhanced by having the standard engine equiped.

The choice after this alteration is do you want some more firepower or speed by taking an XL or do you want enhanced reliance by taking the standard. A lot like how it is now except now the XL does become a viable option instead of a suicidal choice only appropriate in certain nitch mech builds.

[Lykaon]

Tombstoner, on 21 September 2015 - 07:47 AM, said:

I do not agree. Speed = life in MWO. A simple 90% reduction in movement speed 75% torso change for the loss of a single torso is effectively leaving you dead on your feet. if your lucky you can limp back into cover. However your combat capability is clearly reduced. depending on your build you lost at least 50% of your alpha, your still capable of making a kill, but your really just a walking stat point. where as with a standard you got full movement. your more durable.

clan tech being better translates into no movement/ twist penalty for loss of side.

Speed penalties for damage/heat is an untapped balance tool PGI has never really explored. COD doesn't have it. Its about time it get used for something.

You need to go heavy on the initial speed change, because its better to over nerf and buff later then to make a series of nerfs. it makes the players less mad.

I would avoid the speed reduction as a penalty because it frustrates players.And as you said you are pretty much dead anyhow so why even bother putting in a mechanic to survive a side torso destruction with an XL engine if in the long run all it does is buy you a handful of seconds to hobble about while being shot to bits.

In the lore (Battletech table top game) engine damage does NOT effect speed it effects heat levels.

In MWo PGI took one rule dictating engine functionality from the table top game and left another back on the table.

PGI opted to keep the three engine hits = destroyed rule.

PGI did not port over the heat penalty per engine hit taken rule.

My suggestion is the following.To be applied to all engine types standard and XL clan and inner sphere.

Increase the number of engine hits that trigger a mech destruction to FOUR.

Each of the first THREE engine hits applies an accumulating heat penalty.

To incentivise standard engine use I also reccomend buffing the standard engine in the following way.

Increase component health for standard engines to double the value of the XL engine.

Equiping a standard engine applies a CT structure buff quirk to further enhance durability of the mech.

By doing this very little changes for the current clan XL yet the IS XL is now a significantly more viable choice in general.The standard engine still retains it's nitch as the durrable engine choice and soon clan mechs will be gaining access to standard engine use with the IIc mechs with this alteration the clans have a reason to choose a standard engine instead of always taking the XL.

[Lykaon]

Gattsus, on 21 September 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

Torso xl gone, mech gone. Full stop. Because of balance and IMHO flavour.
Clam torso xl gone, penalties seems appropriate, maybe heat and speed 30% (maybe 20 each) because of balance again.
Easy, direct and adjustable, few changes could be as clean and concise as this one.

The quick fix is leave everything as it is now and just bump the number of engine hits to trigger a destruction to FOUR.

Toggle that three to a four and done.Not ideal but the it is the quickest solution.

Edited by Lykaon, 21 September 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[Mcgral18]

sycocys, on 21 September 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

The mechs don't need the extra structure - the component (xl crit slot) does. If you keep it just on the engine itself it stays somewhat balanced to the standard engine. I don't really think standard engines need a buff at all and xl only needs a slight adjustment up if anything, and just on the extra crit slots, like 5 hp per set of three would probably be enough to not go overboard with it.

Engine HP is worthless for anything that's not Crit Padding.
There are no Engine Crits. Just blanket Engine HP (15).

Increasing the XL HP will have absolutely no effect for survivability.



The fact that people don't understand this upsets me.

[sycocys]

Mcgral18, on 21 September 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

Engine HP is worthless for anything that's not Crit Padding.
There are no Engine Crits. Just blanket Engine HP (15).

Increasing the XL HP will have absolutely no effect for survivability.



The fact that people don't understand this upsets me.

Did you even bother to read what I typed before you decided to reply?

--The component xl crit slot <- that's the extra 3 slots it takes up in each side torso, needs an hp buff.

So logically if that is currently shared or that component slot has 0 hp, it should get its own share or a buff.

Not really rocket appliance level thinks here. Take a few deep breaths, read through posts, make an actual attempt to comprehend the words.

[Mcgral18]

sycocys, on 21 September 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

Did you even bother to read what I typed before you decided to reply?

--The component xl crit slot <- that's the extra 3 slots it takes up in each side torso, needs an hp buff.

So logically if that is currently shared or that component slot has 0 hp, it should get its own share or a buff.

Not really rocket appliance level thinks here. Take a few deep breaths, read through posts, make an actual attempt to comprehend the words.

HP, or Structure? Two completely different things.

HP, for Crits, worthless.

Structure, for XLs less useless.

[Khobai]

Quote

The quick fix is leave everything as it is now and just bump the number of engine hits to trigger a destruction to FOUR.

Toggle that three to a four and done.Not ideal but the it is the quickest solution.

But engine crits arnt in the game yet. So all that does is make ISXL identical to CXL. Which id be okay with. But STD engines would need a buff somehow.


Earlier in the topic I suggested adding engine crits as a possible means of balancing engines. Engines would have health like any other item and could be critted.

ISXL = 40 health
CXL = 50 health
STD = 60 health + possible CT internal structure bonus due to the sheer "bulk" of the STD engine

engine slot getting destroyed = -10 health
side torso destruction = -30 health for XL engines

each engine slot destroyed would also result in 2 internal heatsinks being destroyed

So ISXL could survive a side torso destruction. And STD engines would be the most durable engine and pretty much immune to crit destruction. CXL would still be better than ISXL but only by 10 extra health, losing both side torsos would still kill a clan mech though.

Edited by Khobai, 21 September 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[Chuck Jager]

The whole std engine argument is really lost when non mega quirked mechs with stds don't have speed or alpha and XL mechs other than lights don't have survivability. We know that folks can do great in the exceptions to these rules. One of my best stats mechs is the Cata 4x that is consider below the below par mark.

I would gladly give up std engines to have close to the speed/alpha/durability needed to compete with clan mechs. This is coming from someone who drives mostly Clan

[Tombstoner]

Lykaon, on 21 September 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

I would avoid the speed reduction as a penalty because it frustrates players.And as you said you are pretty much dead anyhow so why even bother putting in a mechanic to survive a side torso destruction with an XL engine if in the long run all it does is buy you a handful of seconds to hobble about while being shot to bits.

In the lore (Battletech table top game) engine damage does NOT effect speed it effects heat levels.

In MWo PGI took one rule dictating engine functionality from the table top game and left another back on the table.

PGI opted to keep the three engine hits = destroyed rule.

PGI did not port over the heat penalty per engine hit taken rule.

My suggestion is the following.To be applied to all engine types standard and XL clan and inner sphere.

Increase the number of engine hits that trigger a mech destruction to FOUR.

Each of the first THREE engine hits applies an accumulating heat penalty.

To incentivise standard engine use I also reccomend buffing the standard engine in the following way.

Increase component health for standard engines to double the value of the XL engine.

Equiping a standard engine applies a CT structure buff quirk to further enhance durability of the mech.

By doing this very little changes for the current clan XL yet the IS XL is now a significantly more viable choice in general.The standard engine still retains it's nitch as the durrable engine choice and soon clan mechs will be gaining access to standard engine use with the IIc mechs with this alteration the clans have a reason to choose a standard engine instead of always taking the XL.

I agree with you, but we are talking about the people who picked one rule and skipped many more. The movement penalty i stated was exceptionally harsh as a starting point. It could easily be lowered.

I also favor a heat based/TT solution but PGI has shown the intent to skip over the needed/missing elements of a TT to FPS port. Things like how size interacts with speed to effect durability.

[sycocys]

Mcgral18, on 21 September 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

HP, or Structure? Two completely different things.

HP, for Crits, worthless.

Structure, for XLs less useless.

HP for the component that is taking up the crit space. Same as any other component taking up crit space, yes it is "part" of th engine, but each side has its own component setup and should have an appropriate amount of hp so it's harder to drop it before the torso itself - which actually happens more often than you'd think.

It won't make a lot of difference between xl taking damage due to crit or the torso being blown off before that happens - but it really doesn't need to. There doesn't need to be an internal structure boost to cover for running an xl, that would eliminate the risk of running an xl - which either gives you more overall speed or more room for firepower to offset that risk.

[Mcgral18]

sycocys, on 21 September 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

HP for the component that is taking up the crit space. Same as any other component taking up crit space, yes it is "part" of th engine, but each side has its own component setup and should have an appropriate amount of hp so it's harder to drop it before the torso itself - which actually happens more often than you'd think.

It won't make a lot of difference between xl taking damage due to crit or the torso being blown off before that happens - but it really doesn't need to. There doesn't need to be an internal structure boost to cover for running an xl, that would eliminate the risk of running an xl - which either gives you more overall speed or more room for firepower to offset that risk.

You realize, that does absolutely nothing, right?

Mechs don't die from Engine Crits. They die from ST loss:

-<Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_XL_250" id="3348">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_250_desc" nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_250"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="10" weight="12.5" rating="250" sidesToDie="1" sideSlots="3" slots="6"/>

Giving it more HP (which is currently a blanket 15 HP for all 12 slots) is, I repeat, just good for Crit Padding and does nothing for survivability.

A pointless gesture, really. Typical of PGI, I suppose.

[Johnny Z]

Dirus Nigh, on 21 September 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Clan mechs have CASE in every location for FREE. IS mechs as it is right now, have to pay .5 tons, and a crit slot for it. IS can only use it in the side torso. SO no it is not unreasonable when compared to clan CASE and XL engines.

0 weight 0 crit slot CASE on every section for Omni mechs is on the way out. It makes no sense and is rediculous and who ever thought that up was an idiot (those tt guys were just throwing everything out the window for a while or what?). I cant see this remaining in game.

About the engines, It would make sense if each engine crit slot was given a durability. This durbility would be added to structure. I will let everyone else do the math. It just makes sense.

Also the shutdown on Inner Sphere side torso loss seems like a great idea still, rather than insta boom. This along with heat and speed penalties for both Omni XL and IS xl on side torso loss makes sense and adds to the sim.

Balance achieved topic closed.

[AEgg]

To the main point of the thread:

The real issue here is that clans don't have a choice in engines and the IS does, but one of the IS choices isn't viable. (STD in lights and XL in heavies/assaults).

If we make the IS XL survive ST loss instead of buffing it to make it a viable choice for heavier mechs, we don't really solve the issue. Instead of making the unappealing choice better, we remove the choice between durability and firepower entirely. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. (Choosing between durability and more durability isn't really a choice, choosing between ST loss and no ST loss definitely is).

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

OK one more time and please read before firing off a counter.

... I definitely read your post. You misinterpreted some things. Rather than snipping I'm breaking it up for my response this time. (In hindsight doing this took waaaay longer than I expected it to...)

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

You are arguing an Omnimech issue not an engine issue.We are discussing engines not if clan omnimechs have enough customization.

But here is my take on it and keep in mind I pilot for both factions in CW (mercenaries can do this) and pilot both clan and IS mechs in random drops.I have no motivation for getting the clans nerfed or IS mechs over buffed.

Customization is irrelivent if the lack of customization is counter ballance with outright superior options not available to the IS.
I will not be crying you a river because you MUST have a superior engine and superior DHS and superior endo steel and superior ferro fibrious to go with the clan's superior weapons that due to omni pod mechanics can be selected for optimizing a single set of mastered chassis for any role conceivable when an IS pilot would require up to a dozen seperate mechs to match the versitility of the Omnipods.Clans get everything better including more efficent XP use. And then there is the IIc issue where your entire customization argument is NULL AND VOID.

-snip, adressed later-

And here is why you need to READ BEFORE POSTING. Find and quote me anywhere on this thread where I advocated making clan XL engines as fragile as IS XL engines.I have done no such thing .My actual suggestion was the opposite.

Nobody (or next to nobody) plays just one faction. What you play is irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm NOT suggesting that the clans have an outright superior engine, not by any significant amount. HOWEVER, the clan XL should always be a good option, and it should definitely be better than an IS mech that chose the wrong option (i.e. fire support that doesn't expect to take damage running a STD instead of an XL).

If the clan XL wasn't a good option, you'd be forcing a bad option on all of the clan mechs that use one. This is why we can't have significant differences between clan XL and clan STD.

I mention making clan XL as fragile as IS XL because it's a commonly suggested idea. I'm not only replying to you here, this is a forum post, not a PM.

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

If you want to claim the clan XL must be compared to a STD engine on the basis that IS mechs don't use an XL on account of it being a deathtrap then you proved my point.The disparity is CXL engines do not significantly degrade durability and IS XL engine does and to the degree that the XL is no longer a valid choice.And if it's not a valid choice then does an IS mech actually have as much customization as you believe it does?

You missed the point of the comparison. What I'm saying is that the clan XL HAS to be very nearly as durable as the IS STD, because IS STD durability is what it's up against. If the clan XL was as weak as the IS XL in heavy mechs, but no one used the IS XL because of that downside, we have an obvious balance problem.

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

My idea was a two stage alteration.

1) Increase the engine critical hits to 4 instead of 3 for both clan and IS
2) Have each of the first 3 engine critical hits apply an accumulating heat penalty for both clan and IS

Also my "complaint" as you phrase it is actually quoting you.Go check you said it.

As to the TTK of a side torso and your point about it only being 66% of a CT and 15 seconds etc and so on.

(P.S. having even thinner than average rear armor is not a pluss side for your argument I am frequently piloting an assassination light mech build and get most of my kills from the rear)

Well are you aware that transfered damage recieved into a destroyed location is halved?This is the fundimental strategy behind a "sword and board" mech build. You have an entire side to absorb damage.Ever notice how some mechs are very hard to kill even with an entire side blown off? This is what causes this effect.

So a destroyed side torso of a mech with an IS XL is fatal if it was a clan mech it now has a 50% damage absorbing side to point to the enemy.

Further more the technique of torso twisting to spread damage is effective an fundimental to increasing survival.So with a death trap IS XL you can now spread the damage across your 3 kill zone torsos because you will need to twist back and forth to avoid concentrating damage on a single side and causing the engine to blow.This reduces the pilots ability to maintain battlefield awareness because your pulling a "chubby checker" and swiveling your view port around.

You were saying that my idea of buffing the IS XL for heavier mechs was a bad idea because no heavier mechs would ever take an XL. That was a counter to that.

I'm the one that SUGGESTED buffing the IS XL offensively to make it usable. Why would I suggest that if I thought no one would use it, no matter how high the buffs were?

I am fully aware that damage transfer is 50% damage. But your entire argument against buffing XL was that the enemy would focus your ST and kill you in ten seconds, making any buffs useless. If they can focus your ST, they can just as easily focus your CT instead (and will do so anyway most of the time).

Regardless, it's a given that ST loss is a big downside. My point is that it's not so big a downside that no one will ever consider using an XL no matter how many buffs we give it.

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

I do agree that buffing the deficent IS XL engine is the better choice than to nerf the clan engine.I however advocate a blanket alteration to ALL mechs.I see no reason to exclude IS light mechs.Why should a clan light mech pilot get the durability of a std engine while the IS light mech has about a third the life expectancy with it's Xl .Is it just because the clan pilot chooses clan mechs that they get an advantage above and beyond everything else.

Because the IS XL engine is ALREADY a valid choice for lights. The XL already provides a bigger bonus to lights than heavies. You save the same ten tons mounting an 300 XL be it in a Jenner or in an Atlas. And ten tons matter a whole lot more to a Jenner.

If we're going to buff the IS XL enough to make it usable on assaults and hevies despite the ST penalty, those are going to be some pretty big buffs. IS lights that already benefit more from XL than STD don't need those buffs to make their decision. Adding them there would be adding to what is already the better option.

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 11:08 PM, said:

My overall idea is to try to do this as simple as possible.Any "rules" that get messed with need to apply to both IS and Clan engines.Or we just end up playing pingpong with ballance.

So I propose this...

Increase all engines destruction threshhold to four critical hits.
Each of the first three critical engine hits accumulates a heat penalty (like the table top rules had for lore sake)

each engine critical locations has it's own health value like any component currently has (20 health I believe) An engine takes a critical hit when armor is breached and an engine slot is struck for 20+ damage ( I belive this is how it works currently)

Standard engines have more hitpoints per critical locations than XL counterparts.

Standard engines also apply a CT bonus structure quirk to mechs that equip them.(specific values debatable)

Keep in mind this does very slightly favor clan XL engines because IS XL engines will still have 3 side torso crit slots and losing a side torso would leave the IS mech one engine hit from dead and with 3 accumulated heat penalties while the clan Xl would still need two more critical hits and only have two accumulated heat penalties if it had a side torso destroyed.

Keep in mind that soon the clans will have access to standard engines and it would be nice to have any reason to choose a std engine over a cXL.

Why should rules apply to both sides when the whole point of factions is that they're different?

We know we don't need to buff clans, so lets just buff the IS XL. We seem to agree on that point.

Ok, now to the topic at hand:



The core idea behind clan engines in MWO is that they are not customizeable. The core idea behind IS engines is that you get to choose your type.

So naturally, we want Clan STD and XL to be as close to one another as possible (probably achieved by buffing STD somehow, but that's a concern for after clan mechs actually have STD engines).

And likewise we naturally want IS XL and STD to be as far apart as possible so that the choice matters (and thus, so that choosing the right engine for your build makes it on par or better than the generic engine all clan mechs have).

For the rest of the post lets assume the rest of clan and IS tech is balanced. That's PGIs goal, anyway:

Clans have a generic engine that frees up a lot of tonnage with the minor downside of losing both ST killing you and four less free slots.
IS can choose a STD that weighs a lot but is (slightly) more durable than clan XL, or an IS XL that weighs less but is substantially weaker than clan XL.

Remembering that we want to make the IS engines more different, not more similar:
- The IS STD isn't in a terrible place right now. It wouldn't hurt to give it some defensive buffs, though.
- The IS XL, however, doesn't provide nearly enough offensive ability to make up for it's penalty. So the natural choice is to make the IS XL more powerful offensively. By how much? Whatever it takes to make it a viable option for heavies and assaults.

What those buffs are is only important after we agree on the method.

Our choices are:
1. Let IS XL survive ST loss in any way, shape, or form.
2. Buff the IS XL so that it's offensive bonuses match the penalty of ST loss.

Option 1 reduces (or eliminates) the importance of choosing STD or XL. It's just one more step towards making Clan and IS mechs the same.

Option 2 adds a new choice to IS mechs where one effectively didn't exist before. It reinforces the idea that the Clan and IS are different from each other, and still achieves balance. An IS mech running the new IS XL would be more power offensively than a clan mech running it's XL engine due to the buffs, but weaker defensively due to the ST loss. An IS mech running STD would be much more powerful defensively than a clan mech due to it's buffs, but weaker offesively due to the weight of the engine.


Seems to me that option 2 is better in pretty much every way. The only concern with it is what buffs for the IS XL are good enough without being too good. Fine tuning numbers after the fact is easy, it's making the right choice to begin with that's hard.

[Fleeb the Mad]

AEgg, on 20 September 2015 - 10:16 AM, said:

So you run an XL in your King Crab? I didn't think so. So forcing clan assaults and heavies to take an XL that effectively kills them when a side torso goes is not a workable solution.

Actually I do. While that seems to be an entirely unsubstantiated strawman argument, here's an excerpt from a post in a King Crab thread on the matter:

Fleeb the Mad, on 20 August 2015 - 07:40 PM, said:

Some may consider it sacrilage, but I had decent results running an XL360 with a short-ranged AC/20 and pulse laser setup.

The extra speed allows it to avoid some of the traps that slow assault mechs fall into. It doesn't get left behind as much, can cover the map more quickly in the early game and get to better positions. With that big engine it's rather agile.

However, the key benefit is in situations where having more mobility is better than having more hit points. It is not an asset once you're in a close-range fight, since you can roll damage but can't shield. It does allow you to get in and out of cover a lot faster, mind.

Now, that said, having heat penalties is not the end of the world. Let's talk about this stuff:

Quote

No one on the IS side uses XL engines in bigger mechs right now, yet that's EXACTLY where the disparity between clan and IS lies, particularly with engines. Heavier clan mechs always use XL, and IS mechs never do. We know why IS mechs don't use XL, it's not worth the risk. So lets make it worth the risk, in some way that doesn't make it the only choice (which, lets be honest, anything that allows surviving ST loss would do).

Edit Edit: I guess I should clarify, we COULD balance clan XL by making clan mechs die to ST loss, but we'd need to blanket buff heavier clan mechs to make up for it. I'd rather buff the IS XL than clan mechs using an XL, wouldn't you?

Well no, I wouldn't. XL engines are supposed to offer a tradeoff of survivability versus speed or payload. There are many mechs in heavy and assault classes that can and do use XL engines to good effect, like Banshees. It's just not always a worthwhile tradeoff, particularly in slow mechs with low engine caps.

I would much rather the XL engine not have blanket utility on all chassis, because currently heavy mechs are holding all the cards. I think the IS XL engine offers exactly the right sort of risk vs reward payoff. The Clan XL doesn't. Even if it's gets the heat penalties it should have already had, it's still vastly superior to the IS version in that the mech is not dead.

if implemented it would actually encourage people to have mixed loadouts so they had some cool-running weapons in the event they did blow a side torso. Just a speed nerf, that doesn't even put them where a standard engine mech would go at max speed, is silly.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Khobai, on 20 September 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:

And again you clearly havent read anything ive said. Im not against serious consequences. Im just against a massive speed penalty. Id be fine with a huge torso twist penalty. Although Id much rather see the ISXL get buffed then force unavoidable nerfs on clan players. Id also like to see clan weapons/IS quirks undergo a balance pass to fix whats *actually* unbalanced with the game.

Again, I don't fail at reading comprehension. I just don't find your arguments compelling. If you'd read what I said, you'd notice I was never a proponent of speed penalties. I am a proponent of heat dissipation and heat cap penalties that would reduce the ability of a Clan mech to fire weapons once a side was destroyed.

Quote

1) Clan mechs dont get the option not to use CXL. So theres no way to avoid the penalties by taking a heavier STD engine. Youre basically forcing clan players to suffer a hefty penalty with no possible way to avoid it. Thats really dumb.

2) legging mechs is how you slow them down, the last thing we need is less reason to shoot mechs in the legs by making the side torso also slow mechs down. Every hit location should have its own purpose for shooting.

3) it would absolutely devastate poorly scaled lights (kitfox/puma) and mediums (nova) that rely on what little speed they have because their side torsos are super easy to pinpoint and virtually unarmored. Basically youd get hit by one alphastrike that takes your side torso off and then youre out of the game. You couldnt even retreat. A light mech going 85kph is as good as dead in a game where heavy mechs go 80-90kph.

4) clan players expressly dont want a speed nerf on their engines. clan players have suggested some VERY reasonable alternatives yet IS players remain entirely unreasonable and unwilling to reach compromise or find middle ground. thats just being obstinate.

Players don't get to choose their hitboxes either. That is one reason chassis balancing exists. It is correct that XL engines on Clan mechs are fixed and if they suddenly gained a large weakness it would not be able to be mitigated by changing to a STD.

It would, however, be able to be mitigated by mech design. Players could alter their loadouts to account for trying to fight on for a long time with a side torso blown out that limits their ability to use energy weapons. The answer to heat problems is to use missiles or ballistics, or just to carry more heat sinks.

That said, should it have a negative effect on sub-par chassis, those chassis could be buffed with side torso armour or structure to make up for it similar to what they already do with IS mechs that have bad hitboxes or profiles.

I don't particularly care for the IS player vs Clan player anecdotes though. I have numbers of both Clan and IS mechs in my stable. I am well aware of the consequences of the proposals I support. You'll find that I am A-OK with Clan mechs having their damage output toned down and their survivability unaffected.

So, lastly. Weapons and such. I agree that the weapons are out of balance. However I don't agree that tackling the weapons alone or even first is the correct answer. If you balance the weapons alone without considering any of the other benefits of Clan technology, then he weapons are going to have to suffer massive nerfs in order to achieve parity with IS tech.

Keep in mind parity is the actual goal. Assymetry, not superiority.

Focusing on the weapons alone will eventially make every Clan mech that doesn't have good geometry, hardpoints and the right upgrades (XL, Endo) a box of suffering. That is the wrong approach, because it's going to be very hard to do when the Clan everything is better but only the weapons are being adjusted.

[Khobai]

Quote

Players don't get to choose their hitboxes either.

nope. wrong. false. players choose their hitboxes by choosing different mechs. if you want good hitboxes you can pick a mech with good hitboxes. and players do this ALL the time. picking a stalker over an awesome for example.

but clan players cant choose a different engine since all clan mechs use the same engine.

clan mechs cant choose not to use CXL so punishing them excessively for using CXL is dumb.

Quote

If you balance the weapons alone without considering any of the other benefits of Clan technology, then he weapons are going to have to suffer massive nerfs in order to achieve parity with IS tech.

Not really. Since ISXL would gain the ability to survive side torso destruction, you'd no longer need to worry about the difference in parity between CXL and ISXL. They would effectively be the same (and youd have to buff STD engines somehow so ISXL isnt completely superior to STD engines).

Youd really only need to worry about the difference in parity between IS weapons and Clan weapons at that point. Most clan players recognize clan lasers/gauss are a bit too good and probably would concede a laser/gauss nerf. Same with IS players and theyre more ridiculous weapon quirks.

That is by far the best and easiest way to balance IS and Clan mechs without breeding resentment among the players by imposing ridiculous nerfs on CXL.

These people going CXL nerf crazy are just being selfish. Theyre not improving the game by forcing clan players to bend over and take a huge nerf up the @$$. Especially if its a nerf thats so harsh that it would ruin the game for some people and make them stop playing clans or quit the game altogether. Which is exactly the kindve nerf -20% speed would be.

Edited by Khobai, 21 September 2015 - 07:42 PM.

[Lykaon]

Khobai, on 21 September 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

But engine crits arnt in the game yet. So all that does is make ISXL identical to CXL. Which id be okay with. But STD engines would need a buff somehow. Earlier in the topic I suggested adding engine crits as a possible means of balancing engines. Engines would have health like any other item and could be critted. ISXL = 40 health CXL = 50 health STD = 60 health + possible CT internal structure bonus due to the sheer "bulk" of the STD engine engine slot getting destroyed = -10 health side torso destruction = -30 health for XL engines each engine slot destroyed would also result in 2 internal heatsinks being destroyed So ISXL could survive a side torso destruction. And STD engines would be the most durable engine and pretty much immune to crit destruction. CXL would still be better than ISXL but only by 10 extra health, losing both side torsos would still kill a clan mech though.

Honestly we need a more robust critical hit mechanic in this game and I have said this for going onto four years now.

If I had my way I would have an increase in internal structure accross the board (maybe even doubling our current values)

Whenever a location sustains damage and it has no armor on it a "roll" is made to determine if a component is hit or if the structure is hit.

If a component hit is determined to occur a valid critical slot in that location is randomly selected and damage is applied to that component.If that components damage threshhold is exceeded it is destroyed (engines and gyro have effects based upon number of destroyed critical slots)

The following effects apply to each type of item.

weapons,heatsinks,MASC,Probes,ECM and other electronics are destroyed if they are hit and they have their Health exceeded by damage taken.

Sensor hit: upon having sensors disabled all the HUD ellements are switched off.

Gyro hit: upon taking a gyro critical hit the HUD targeting reticule will shake when the mech is in motion (much like how it is effected by jumping) 2 gyro hits destroys the mech.

Engine hit: each engine critical hit increase heat by an accumulative fixed % value.4 engine hits kill the mech.

Arm Actuators (upper and lower) when these actuators are destroyed the rate of pitch movement for the arm targeting reticule is reduced by an accumlaltive (for each actuator destroyed) % value.

Arm actuators (lower and hand) when these actuators are destroyed the rate of yaw movement for the arm targeting reticule is reduced by an accumlative (for each actuator destroyed) % value.

Leg actuators: when a leg actuator is destroyed the mech's speed and turning speed are deminished by a fixed % per destroyed actuator (never to exceed -50%)

Ammunition when hit is destroyed as it has 0 health.A second roll determines if the ammo explodes.Exploding ammo has it's explosion value based upon type of ammo and the remaining amount of ammo that is detonated. CASE will confine all damage to the location the CASE is installed in and reduce the damage of the explosion by a set % value.

Edited by Lykaon, 21 September 2015 - 10:41 PM.