240 replies to this topic

[Davers]

Tarl Cabot, on 18 September 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

Just pointing out that for the BOARD GAME, the Clans originally rolled with Star-League era tech during playtesting against IS forces, and the Clans failed to advance using their combat style. It was at that time that the current Clan tech was invented so that they could roll over non-Star League era mechs.

LOL If this is true we should be even less inclined to follow TT. Nice balance FASA.

Livewyr, on 18 September 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

I do not want clan mechs in IS skins, or IS mechs in clan skins. It removes flavor from picking a side...

I think that clan XLs should have a heavier penalty for losing a Side Torso (hell 35-40% speed loss works..) but I do not think IS should have clan style XLs simply because they don't have all the hardlocked components, including engine. (That, and if they made IS engines equivalent to clans, they can kiss STD engines good bye, except for some assault mechs that want to use AC20s.)

Maybe we should use your argument and make sure Clan IIC mechs can only use STD engines?

FupDup, on 18 September 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

That's not really a Clan XL problem, that's an Omnimech problem.

It has been my observation that Clan players cannot comprehend discussing the Clan XL outside of the context of Omnimechs.

waterfowl, on 19 September 2015 - 02:53 AM, said:

NO. NO. NO. There are too many ****** consequences to this bad idea

1. Indirectly increases pinpoint meta by giving more tonnage to everyone. TTK is already too low
2. No reason to take STD, because lacking both STs is the same as death except for a tiny number of mechs
3. Makes every mech cost even more for new players because of XL price, makes bigger gap between poor and rich players
4. Homogenizes the game and makes for fewer interesting choices when it comes to builds
5. ST loss will severely injure light mechs more than assaults, who don't need speed
6. Will make every assault absurdly fast without penalty, in addition to firepower
7. Takes away something that changes the gameplay (playing versus or playing as) clan mechs, which again, leads to less meaningful choices in the game which means less fun.

Many of your points can be directly attributed to Clan mechs themselves.

1.Increase pinpoint meta.
2. No need for STD engines.
3. Makes every mech cost more for new players.
4. Homogenizes the game creates fewer interesting builds.
6. Makes assaults and heavies very fast with no penalty in addition to firepower.
and 7, which means "I like Clans having this power and not the IS"

[Tarl Cabot]

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.

[GrimRiver]

Andi Nagasia, on 18 September 2015 - 04:09 PM, said:

This Idea is Very Simple,

IS XL Engines have 3 Engine Crits in their STs,
Clan XL Engines have 2 Engine Crits in their STs,


=XL Balance Concept #1(Speed)=
Make IS XL Engines Survivable on ST loss,
then institute a -10%Speed Quirk per lost Engine Crit,
-
IS XL Engine has 3 Engine Crits in its ST,
so on ST loss an IS XL would gain a -30%Speed Quirk,
-
Clan XL Engine has 2 Engine Crits in its ST,
so on ST loss an IS XL would gain a -20%Speed Quirk,
-
Losing both STs on an XL Engine still results in death,


=XL Balance Concept #2(Structure)=
Make STD and IS XL Engines more Survivable vs C-XL,
by instituting Bonus Internal Structure to STD(CT) and IS-XL(STs),
-
IS and Clan STD Engines would gain a CT Structure Quirk,
giving the STD Equipped Mech +10-20 Bonus CT Structure,
-
IS XL Engines would gain a ST Structure Quirk(both sides),
giving the IS-XL Equipped Mech +10-15 Bonus ST Structure,
-
Losing a ST on an IS-XL Engine still results in death,


Russ on Twitter saying he would consider an XL Change,


there is a Fear of STD Engines becoming useless with this,
so if this is tested in the PTS and STD do seem to lose Viability,
the Penalty %s could be Increased or Structure Bonus Increased,

=Topic Poll=

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit-Spelling,
Edit2- STD Notation

I support this.

I've been too afraid to pop a XL in my assaults/heavies because I always end up losing one of my sides in a brawl, but with mechs that have CT weapon slots I'll still use a STD for a zombie build.

To me XL's have only been good for lights, which isn't fair to my mediums/heavies/assaults.

[Khobai]

Quote

The clan XL engine is the root of the majority of the imbalances between IS can Clan tech.

Its really not. Give ISXL engines that can survive side torso destructions and clans will still beat them

Because its the clan weapons that make clans dominant.

Whats going to happen is youre going to get CXL nerfed... then realize it wasnt the problem all along and then youll want to nerf clan lasers/gauss too... then clan mechs will be so screwed up by nerfs that they wont even be worth playing.

Nerfing the clan lasers/gauss first then seeing where clan mechs stand makes so much more sense. Also buff ISXL to survive a side torso destruction, thats a great idea, and needs to be implemented (but without the dumb speed penalty).

Quote

I don't subscribe to the notion that only
the weapons are the problem. Clan XLs, DHS and endo/ferro are inherently vastly superior to their IS counterparts. I

And youre wrong.

The weapons are definitely the main problem. One of the biggest balance problems is that a CERML is very nearly as good as an ISLL but only weighs 1 ton instead of 5 tons. That and CGAUSS is 3 tons lighter than ISGAUSS.

For example, lets look at an ebon jaguar with 2 cgauss and 3 cerml. Its saving 6 tons on the gauss and anywhere from 9-12 tons on the CERML when you consider that IS has to take 5-ton LLs to match the CERML for range. That means the Ebon Jaguar is picking up a 15-18 ton advantage from the weapons alone. Which is far more than the CXL engine is providing.

Its no coincidence you see cerml/gauss on practically every clan mech. They gain an overwhelming advantage from using those two weapons. CXL isnt killing anyone. Its Lasers/Gauss that are racking up kills.

Quote

IS tech is fine where it is.

Yeah its not. Because ISXL is basically useless on anything but lights and some mediums. Its even useless on the heavy/assault mechs thats are SUPPOSED to use XL.

ISXL definitely needs to be buffed to survive a side torso destruction. And that makes far more sense than nerfing CXL.

Quote

The idea that a Clan mech would become useless with serious consequences to engine damage is honestly laughable.

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.

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.

Edited by Khobai, 20 September 2015 - 02:09 PM.

[Lykaon]

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

You missed my meaning on the first point. The idea is that we want clan and IS to be balanced, but we don't want to do that by making them more similar, we want to do that by making them more different. Your suggestion is just to make them more similar. And once we start down that path, achieving balance will mean moving closer and closer until clan and IS mechs do play the same way.


Moving omnipods is completely unrelated to the choice of STD or XL engine. Your locked engine affects all of the omnipods, since each variant has the same engine, so regardless of which ones you use their usefulness is still largely dictated by your engine type and size. I'm assuming you realize that you can't swap omnipods between mechs, but your post is worded to suggest you don't realize this.

The Orion and Timberwolf are a bad comparison simply because the Orion has mediocre hardpoints and a huge profile. It's much like comparing a Dragon and, well, any other heavy. The Dragon simply needs buffs because it's base design isn't very good.

IIC mechs are indeed a problem, but everyone knows that. If we are balancing mildly superior clan weapons by removing customization and penalizing the mechs that are "right" stock, then IIC mechs need to be handled differently. Most likely, with blanket negative quirks. There aren't very many of them, after all.

But here's where your problem is:


One, it's not a programming or manpower issue if we change a property of the XL engine itself, not the mechs you put it in.
Two, it's not an easier kill if that engine provides significant bonuses in exchange for the lower durability. Right now, pretty much everyone agrees the weight savings usually are not significant enough.

Going off the numbers I provided doesn't do anyone any good. Numbers are easy to tweak. Lets just do this to see if the idea holds water:

IS XL provides (.5xMechTonnage)% heat reduction,
(1xMechTonnage)% faster twist speed
(.25xMechTonnage)% faster weapon cooldowns
(MechTonnage/25 rounded up) extra internal heatsinks (built-in)

For all mechs over 35 tons, non linear scaling would probably be better, but linear is much easier to write out for sake of explanation.

So a KGC that took an XL would get 50% heat dissipation, double twist speed, 25% faster weapon cooldowns, 4 free DHS, and of course the tonnage savings. I'm thinking that would be more than enough to make an IS XL a viable option for heavier mechs.

So we just would need to tweak the numbers to find out what the buffs should be and what sort of scale to use so that we find an amount that makes IS XL viable for heavier mechs without making it the only option (as would be the case if we added significant surviveability buffs to it).



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.

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?

Again allow me to address each case in point.

Clan mechs and IS mechs are more similar than different. The game mechanics dictating how mechs function is identical.And I am coming from a strictly game mechanics stand point.

It is blatantly poor design to have a faction that is superior to another and expect them to be competitive against each other.

So let's say we "ballance" clan vs IS by focusing on the differences between the two.

So let's annalyze what differences there are.

Since all mechs use the same rule set for moving,armor depletion and taking damage all mechs use hardpoints divided by weapon types.and all mechs have a heat and cooling mechanic it is obvious that the core mechanics apply equally to clans and IS.

So what are the differences.

Omni pods for omni mechs (as much a benifit as a hinderance if not outright more benificial)
Fixed structural ellements for Omnimechs (one down side I can find)
And superior weapons
Superior Endo / ferro DHS
No penalty XL engines

Looks like focusing on the differences illistrates how much the clans need ballancing if we are to expect IS mechs to directly compete on a one for one basis.

So how do we ballance based upon differences? I can't see any way to do this without nerfing clan tech into the ground so it's different in very negative ways to compensate for all the other construction based bonuses the clans have including most of all the no penalty CXL engine of free extra tonnage at no cost to durability.

I don't want to have all my clan weapons nerfed to gauss rifle levels of annoyance.I play both faction as a Merc my Merc corp can take contracts on either factions behalf.

Now about omni pods.

Your claim was Clan mechs lack choices and I'm calling you out on that being a pile of crap. You are fixed on endo steel ferro fibrous and engine size. However it is outright misleading to claim that having a 375 XL engine is in any way detrimental to the Timberwolf.

Engine size dictates speed and torso twist speed. The use of the 375Xl with clan endo and ferro is pretty much as ideal a mech build you can hope for in a heavy mech.An inner sphere mech would need to give up a great deal of durrability to match the Timberwolf in agility.The Timberwolf also has more non structural tonnage available than an equal tonned IS mech (Orion is our only IS 75 tonner until the Black Knight and Marauder) that chooses not to run the suicide engine.Just because the Timber has preassigned an awesome engine and capped out it's internal DHS is not what I call a massive disadvantage.

In trade for having locked engines structure armor and DHS you get mix and match omni pods to optimize the mech to whatever role you choose for it.The same Timber that was a Gauss + laser monstrosity can be a laser + SRM brawler or an AC + LRMs.Want some jumpjets on that Timberwolf or Direwolf just slap on the pods.
Let's say I find I completley addore the Black Knight but I am also predisposed to SRM use or Autocannons.Well I am now forced to pilot an orion to get those weapons.A Timber just swaps the pods.

An finaly You master one Omnimech type and it doesn't matter what pods you put on it or what role you optimize for it's still one mastered mech type.An IS pilot would need to master several chassis to get access to the hardpoints and configurations they may want.This is an often overlooked bonus of omnipods.Clans need to master three chassis and they are pretty much set for any role that weight class may need filled.IS pilots need 6,9 even 12 to get the same level of flexability.

So no I do not feel locked equipment is such a huge burden.The benifits are are off the charts in compareson.
Locked structure ellements in exchange for plug and play hardpoints,Non suicidal XL engines,Half crit space Endo steel and vastly superior weapons.

So you say the Orion and the Timberwolf are a bad match? Currently they are the only counterparts we have for 75 tons mechs.Hence the reason I choose the Orion.The Black Knight is coming up soon and it has even worse problems in a compareson due to also having no choice about weapon class to use (all energy).

But please pick any Inner Sphere heavy and I can still validate my point with the added benefit of the timber having an outright tonnage advatage with it's higher armor cap.

We agree on IIc mech so....

Onto your suggested XL engine buffs.

You could give an IS mech 200% cooling efficency if you like it won't matter because the limiting factor of weapon cooldowns is what your damage is based off until you reach your heat cap.

Most mechs can sustain at least two full alpha strikes and the really good builds pump out three or four.Assuming the average weapon cycle time is 3.5 seconds this means that a well built mech will be able to alpha three times in 7 seconds (0/3.5/7 second) If that mech can not survive for at least 10.5 seconds then any amount of absurd buffing makes no difference.

And guess what? an XL equiped mech (in particular heavy and assault mechs) won't last 10 seconds under fire.

I routinly run a Stormcrow that puts out 52 firepower in a single alpha and I can fire 3 alphas back to back (one more if I pop a coolant) This is easily enough firepower to take out the side torso of anything in under 10 seconds.)

As long as it is possible to destriy a mech with an XL engine in under 10 seconds (even in theory) no amount of buffing cooling will matter because it's irrelivent if it is never used.

So let's see we would need to give IS XL engines massive cooling efficencies and massive weapon cooldowns to compensate for the fact that ONE: you will be allive for about ten seconds with an XL on a larger mech. TWO: the cooling only kicks in if you get to fire more than twice so you need really high weapon cooldown quirks.

And you added in twist speed? I assume this is to facilitate damage spreading? great you added 6 seconds to your survival times on average at the cost of weapon accuracy.Your clan counterparts still survive having half a mech blown off.

This is starting to look far more complicated than my proposal.

1) Increase the lethal engine crit hit nimber to four.
2) The first three engine crits apply a heat penalty that is accumlative.

Even with this the clans come out on top because loss of a side torso is only 2 of the 4 engine hits needed to destroy a mech and has accumulated 2 heat penalties.Meanwhile the IS has lost 3 of the 4 engine crits from losing a side torso needing only 1 more to be destroyed and has accumulated 3 heat penalties.

[wanderer]

Chados, on 20 September 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

Another thing that ought to be considered is the MechCommander solution of battlefield salvage. Pilots ought to be able to salvage a Clanner PPC or gauss rifle or laser and retrofit it into an IS 'mech. Because the only real way an Orion et al. is going to be able to compete long term is if it can boost its weapons. Lighter, smaller Clan weapons means an IS 'mech retrofitting tech cou,d have a shot at using all its hardpoints and returning the Clan laser/streakboats' favor. If I could swap IS ALRM20s on a Catapult C4 for their Clanner equivalents, I'd do it in a New York minute-they recycle faster, they are lighter (allowing carriage of heavier backup weapons), and they do damage inside 180 meters. It's Deity-Mode for LRM carriers.

The second you allow Clantech to be compatible fully with IS gear, you've pretty much tossed everything about "balance" out the window in favor of hybridizing the perfect mix. And it'd have to go both ways, at which point I'll be strapping the best of both worlds on a Clan 'Mech and laughing my head off as I gun down folks left and right.

Nope. Nope nope nope with a side of OH HELL NAW.

Clan machines need to stop being balanced 1:1. It ain't working, it hasn't worked, and it will -never- work. Classify them in matchmaker as what they are - worth more than an IS 'Mech of the same weight - and balance them according to that higher quality standard, with the REALLY big Clan 'Mechs effectively taking up an extra slot on a team.

[Lykaon]

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

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?

As you pointed out no one (or nearly no one) uses XL engines on heavy and assault Inner Sphere mechs. And you are correct in the determination that this is a significant ballance issue. The risk to using an IS XL engine does not provide equal benifits. IS XL engines particularly in heavy and assault mechs reduces survival so much it is rarely effective to make that choice.

I feel the best ballance is struck by granting the IS XL similar durability.This option takes nothing from the clan mechs that use CXL engines.

I would do this by simply increasing the number of engine crit to cause mech destruction to 4.Applied equally to clan and IS mechs.

But now you say why would anyone take a STD engine?

This is where the types of buffs you suggested for XL engine can be useful.

My idea was a simple mech durrability buff for equiping a STD engine.

A mech with a standard engine recieves XX% CT internal structure value quirk.

This makes the XL engine the go to choice for more speed or more firepower and the Standard engine the choice for resiliance.

And to address the issue some have put forth about Light Fusion Engines (LFE). The concern is if an IS XL can survive a side torso destruction than what use is the LFE?

Atlas+ AC20 = no XL
Atlas + AC20 = yes LFE

There is still a purpose to the Light fusion engine and it's as a combination weight and crit slot saving option.

I would not advocate altering clan XL engines to also cause mech destruction upon the loss of a side torso.There are already plenty of players who feel TTK is too short already.I feel it's a better option to adjust in favor of IS XL durability over making clan engines equally fragile.

[AEgg]

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

-snip-

You're still missing my point about customization. Sure, omnipods are customization, but that's completely unrelated to whether you run a STD or an XL. They both play into overall clan vs IS balance, sure. But engine balance is what we're talking about right now. Since clans can't choose, their default engine, the XL, has to be balanced with the optimal choice for the IS. Right now, IS mechs other than lights run almost exclusively STD engines. So, the clan XL is up against STD engines.

Nerfing the clan XL to die or effectively die on ST loss completely skews that comparison in favor of the IS, for the obvious reason that no IS assault (that isn't an LRM boat...) would take an XL that kills on side torso loss for no benefit other than some free tonnage. You'd be forcing most if not all heavier clan mechs into taking not a "slightly" wrong engine like the TWF running one too big, but a "hugely" wrong engine like an XL Atlas.

Your complaint that no one would EVER use an IS XL that dies on ST loss in a heavy or assault, no matter how many benefits it provided, is nonsense.

Side torsos have 66% of the armor of the center torso (arguably higher than that since you need less armor in rear side torsos than center). If you're losing a side torso in ten seconds, you'd lose your CT in fifteen, which is still a laughably small amount and far too little time for ANY buff or nerf to make any real difference.

Lykaon, on 20 September 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

-Another Snip, my post is too big...-

So we agree that we need to buff the IS XL engine, primarily just for heavier mechs (as IS lights hardly need any buffs).

The XL doesn't provide enough offensive capability to make up for the defensive downside right now. This is why lights and some mediums do run XL. The tonnage it frees up is enough to offset the downside. But when that tonnage amount is the same for all mechs, the same ten tons matter a lot less to a 100 ton mech than to a 30 ton mech.

If an XL engine freed up 10 tons on a Jenner and 30 tons on an Atlas, do you think the Atlas would run an XL? I think I'd consider it.

Either we buff the IS XL to survive ST loss and buff the IS STD to either increase mobility (top speed, acceleration, turn ratio, what have you), durability (structure most likely), or firepower (heat reduction, weapon cooldowns, etc).

Or we buff the IS XL directly without changing ST loss with one of the same categories as above.

The thing is, the first option is a buff to EVERYTHING. The second is only adding another option (ideally, one that isn't always the best choice). That is why I prefer the second idea.

I'd much rather give the IS side another interesting choice to make than just blanket buff everything. After all, PGI is already (in theory) looking at rebalancing IS vs Clan. If we just blanket buff the IS side to solve this, that's just moving the goalpoast around, it's not actually addressing the issue of IS XL and Clan XL being fundamentally different.

Edit: bolded for emphasis...

Edited by AEgg, 20 September 2015 - 03:45 PM.

[Dunereaper]

Add the Light Fusion Engine. I know it is early in the time line but it would be a boost that is some what in the lore.

[Clydewinder]

Tastian, on 18 September 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

-30% speed is a slap on the wrist and you would immediately see every IS mech take XL engines.

Although I understand you are trying to make IS XL closer to clan XL, you need something MUCH more severe - say -75% speed AND a heat penalty to give reason for taking a STD engine. After that give Clan XL something like -20% speed.

-30% speed penalty on a side torso loss would not be a penalty at all, in fact it would put you right where the STD engine would put you at speed-wise but with less tonnage used.

side torso loss on an XL should put your mech at broken leg speed and a loss of 1/3 of cooling for the duration of the game.

[BFHKitteh]

IS XL- loss of ST does not result in instant death, instead 5% of the rating of the engine is applied as CT internal structure damage. This is applied again if the second ST is lost.

Atlas with XL 300 takes 15 damage to CT internal structure when it loses its ST.

Locust with XL 190 takes 9 damage to CT internal structure when it loses its ST.


Perhaps C XL take 2.5% damage.



Or just keep the loss of second ST as a death.

Edited by BFHKitteh, 20 September 2015 - 04:37 PM.

[Davers]

Dunereaper, on 20 September 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Add the Light Fusion Engine. I know it is early in the time line but it would be a boost that is some what in the lore.

You can't fix current balance problems by adding a new mandatory piece of equipment that every IS mech has to buy.

[beerandasmoke]

People need to keep in mind that Russ is reluctant to nerf clan mechs because the whales throw a screaming tantrum everytime he tries to balance clan mechs or weapons. Just look at what happened when he tried cooldown and duration nerfs to the timber and stormcrow. Thats why this is such a good idea and win for both sides. Clans dont get nerfed and IS gets a much needed boost without superquirks to certain mechs.

Edited by beerandasmoke, 20 September 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[Davers]

beerandasmoke, on 20 September 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

People need to keep in mind that Russ is reluctant to nerf clan mechs because the whales throw a screaming tantrum everytime he tries to balance clan mechs or weapons. Just look at what happened when he tried cooldown and duration nerfs to the timber and stormcrow. Thats why this is such a good idea and win for both sides. Clans dont get nerfed and IS gets a much needed boost without superquirks to certain mechs.

Except that, once again, the nerds didn't have that huge an impact. The Timber Wolf and Stormcrow are still very good mechs. All it did (maybe) is give some other Clan mechs a chance to be popular too, like the Ebon Jaguar.

[Xetelian]

XL engine either needs to be normalized or LFE need to be introduced.

Either we need both running equal tech or there always will be an advantage held by one side.

[sycocys]

how about just keep it the same but give the IS XL more structure hp per crit slot taken so they don't get insta-popped. Personally I enjoy the risk of taking out my mech with XL engines. Making me pay attention to spreading damage/not getting torso hit much more.

[Andi Nagasia]

sycocys, on 20 September 2015 - 05:15 PM, said:

how about just keep it the same but give the IS XL more structure hp per crit slot taken so they don't get insta-popped. Personally I enjoy the risk of taking out my mech with XL engines. Making me pay attention to spreading damage/not getting torso hit much more.

thats much like, option#2Structure
for IS-LX to Clan-XL balance give IS-XL equipped Mechs 10-15 more Structure in each ST,
and for STD to XL balance give STD equipped Mechs 20-30 more Structure in their CT,

[Lykaon]

AEgg, on 20 September 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

You're still missing my point about customization. Sure, omnipods are customization, but that's completely unrelated to whether you run a STD or an XL. They both play into overall clan vs IS balance, sure. But engine balance is what we're talking about right now. Since clans can't choose, their default engine, the XL, has to be balanced with the optimal choice for the IS. Right now, IS mechs other than lights run almost exclusively STD engines. So, the clan XL is up against STD engines.

Nerfing the clan XL to die or effectively die on ST loss completely skews that comparison in favor of the IS, for the obvious reason that no IS assault (that isn't an LRM boat...) would take an XL that kills on side torso loss for no benefit other than some free tonnage. You'd be forcing most if not all heavier clan mechs into taking not a "slightly" wrong engine like the TWF running one too big, but a "hugely" wrong engine like an XL Atlas.

Your complaint that no one would EVER use an IS XL that dies on ST loss in a heavy or assault, no matter how many benefits it provided, is nonsense.

Side torsos have 66% of the armor of the center torso (arguably higher than that since you need less armor in rear side torsos than center). If you're losing a side torso in ten seconds, you'd lose your CT in fifteen, which is still a laughably small amount and far too little time for ANY buff or nerf to make any real difference.



So we agree that we need to buff the IS XL engine, primarily just for heavier mechs (as IS lights hardly need any buffs).

The XL doesn't provide enough offensive capability to make up for the defensive downside right now. This is why lights and some mediums do run XL. The tonnage it frees up is enough to offset the downside. But when that tonnage amount is the same for all mechs, the same ten tons matter a lot less to a 100 ton mech than to a 30 ton mech.

If an XL engine freed up 10 tons on a Jenner and 30 tons on an Atlas, do you think the Atlas would run an XL? I think I'd consider it.

Either we buff the IS XL to survive ST loss and buff the IS STD to either increase mobility (top speed, acceleration, turn ratio, what have you), durability (structure most likely), or firepower (heat reduction, weapon cooldowns, etc).

Or we buff the IS XL directly without changing ST loss with one of the same categories as above.

The thing is, the first option is a buff to EVERYTHING. The second is only adding another option (ideally, one that isn't always the best choice). That is why I prefer the second idea.

I'd much rather give the IS side another interesting choice to make than just blanket buff everything. After all, PGI is already (in theory) looking at rebalancing IS vs Clan. If we just blanket buff the IS side to solve this, that's just moving the goalpoast around, it's not actually addressing the issue of IS XL and Clan XL being fundamentally different.

Edit: bolded for emphasis...

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


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.

[MeiSooHaityu]

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.

[sycocys]

Andi Nagasia, on 20 September 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

thats much like, option#2Structure
for IS-LX to Clan-XL balance give IS-XL equipped Mechs 10-15 more Structure in each ST,
and for STD to XL balance give STD equipped Mechs 20-30 more Structure in their CT,

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.