43 replies to this topic

[butchly13]

I didn't see this discussed yet, but having IS XL engines perform like clan XLs in that you have to destroy both torsos seems like it'll make IS mechs slightly OP in that there is no longer a reason to run a standard engine. XL engines provide greater speed at lower weights and the increased crit slot cost (to me) doesn't make a big difference. When I'm building mechs I normally run out of tonnage before I run out of crit slots, but then again I'm still new so I haven't done a lot of meta building or tried to make the most OP mech I could.

Additionally, clan mechs can't change the size of their XL engines so to me the tradeoff between the two is currently equal. I can't make my Adder or Kit Fox run any faster, but at least I can survive losing a torso, rendering me almost useless, but still able to do something. If IS gets the ability to rock clan-style XLs then I think clan mechs should get the option of changing their engine size.

[adamts01]

DeathWaffle, on 18 October 2015 - 10:46 PM, said:

Let's get the facts straight about our community's opinion

This tiny forum population hardly represents the community.

[Khobai]

ISXL should survive side torso destruction

it lets us get rid of all the lopsided IS structure quirks that are running rampant

even someone with half a brain on life support can still see how quirks are destroying the game...

Quote

IS mechs slightly OP in that there is no longer a reason to run a standard engine.

simple. give the standard engine a considerable CT structure buff. then IIC mechs have a reason to consider STD engines too.

Edited by Khobai, 22 January 2016 - 09:52 AM.

[Astarot]

Khobai, on 22 January 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

ISXL should survive side torso destruction

it lets us get rid of all the lopsided IS structure quirks that are running rampant

even someone with half a brain on life support can still see how quirks are destroying the game...



simple. give the standard engine a considerable CT structure buff. then IIC mechs have a reason to consider STD engines too.

What sets the Clan and the IS XL engines that clanners are locked

[butchly13]

Khobai, on 22 January 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

simple. give the standard engine a considerable CT structure buff. then IIC mechs have a reason to consider STD engines too.

This still doesn't necessarily balance the equation. I've got an Adder locked in at 107kph or so w/ speed tweak. Sure there's a Jenner IIC, but that's only one light mech that I can actually swap the engines in.

Sure I can buy IS mechs, and I will. But when I'm doing CW with my clan, having a Jenner as my only option for a fast mech is kind of insulting. I don't see things being balanced if IS gets XLs that perform like clan XLs unless the clans can swap engines.

[Generic Internetter]

Every time I lose a side torso in a Clan mech, my top speed is capped at around 70%-ish.

It would make sense for heat & speed consequences to be the same across Clan and IS, but this is based on TT rules, so... Whatever the TT rules are I guess.

[butchly13]

Generic Internetter, on 22 January 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

Every time I lose a side torso in a Clan mech, my top speed is capped at around 70%-ish.

It would make sense for heat & speed consequences to be the same across Clan and IS, but this is based on TT rules, so... Whatever the TT rules are I guess.

I've noticed my speed being capped too. Never paid enough attention to why it was happening but yup, can confirm. Lose one side, suffer from slower speeds.

[Alex Gorsky]

Yes it is a necessary decision. Without it, the MWO will never be balanced.

Edited by Alex Gorsky, 23 January 2016 - 04:28 AM.

[Astarot]

Alex Gorsky, on 23 January 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

Yes it is a necessary decision. Without it, the MWO will never be balanced.

You might want to watch this, so you know how there are many types of balance types. This includes "imbalance", and through the use of imbalance you create balance, and as they even say, if the game was just a giant chess game, then you will never see people coming up with new and interesting strategies.

Edited by Astarot, 23 January 2016 - 08:21 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

You might want to watch this, so you know how there are many types of balance types. This includes "imbalance", and through the use of imbalance you create balance, and as they even say, if the game was just a giant chess game, then you will never see people coming up with new and interesting strategies.

perfect imbalance doesnt apply to MWO

in order for perfect imbalance to work you need to provide players with the tools to counter the imbalance (or in the case of LoL you give players the option to play different heroes with different toolsets that counter eachother)

MWO completely fails to do that. which is why its not perfect imbalance. its simply imbalance.


Again ISXL needs should be able to survive side torso destruction so the unbalanced IS structure quirks can be eliminated. That gets rid of the imbalance of IS mediums having the same structure as clan assaults while at the same time making ISXL worth using.

Edited by Khobai, 23 January 2016 - 01:07 PM.

[Astarot]

Khobai, on 23 January 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

perfect imbalance doesnt apply to MWO

in order for perfect imbalance to work you need to provide players with the tools to counter the imbalance (or in the case of LoL you give players the option to play different heroes with different toolsets that counter eachother)

MWO completely fails to do that. which is why its not perfect imbalance. its simply imbalance.


Again ISXL needs should be able to survive side torso destruction so the unbalanced IS structure quirks can be eliminated. That gets rid of the imbalance of IS mediums having the same structure as clan assaults while at the same time making ISXL worth using.

Even though mechwarrior has many tools to counter this imbalance, tools that are built directly into the engine itself, which also includes a heat penility when a side torso is destroyed, did you know that when you destroy a side torso, you destroy some of the engine heat sinks? If both side torsos are destroyed, then the Clanner goes DOWN, pretty hard, while IS mechs can build their famous zombie mechs because, well they can lose both torsos and as long as their center or head has a weapon they they can keep on dishing out some, at the very least, minor damage.

The balance is a little more broad then how you are thinking about it, Clanners have their advantages, and IS has their's.

[Khobai]

Quote

did you know that when you destroy a side torso, you destroy some of the engine heat sinks?

thats not perfect imbalance. if you destroy an ISXL side torso, theyre DEAD.

thats just plain imbalance.

[Tarl Cabot]

Generic Internetter, on 22 January 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

Every time I lose a side torso in a Clan mech, my top speed is capped at around 70%-ish.

It would make sense for heat & speed consequences to be the same across Clan and IS, but this is based on TT rules, so... Whatever the TT rules are I guess.

TT rules are the base but they are not the final word because transitioning from a board game that uses dice to FPS-type PC game which majority of the weapons fired off a TIC hits the same spot, no expanding/contracting CoF, means several things has to be translated.

MWO is currently using their own "House Rules". Technically there are not actual engine crits in MWO. The mechs already CW-preferred, at least from a CW pov, would hardly benefit from this change, in the same manner that the best Clan mechs would hardly benefit from a change in how C-Endo/C-Ferro is applied, being able to switch from one to another since they already have both (T-wolf) or don't need really need it (dire).

The IS mechs that would benefit are those that are ballistic/missile-centric with only a few energy hardpoints. It would grant them the ability to gain speed and carry a better payload. And it would set things up where if/when the IS obtains their own Omni-mechs, which given the current setup would have locked components, would be come glass cannons.

Penalty-wise, with the loss of a side torso for an IS-XL the penalty would be higher than the C-XL that is currently set at 20%, iirc.

Astarot, on 23 January 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

You might want to watch this, so you know how there are many types of balance types. This includes "imbalance", and through the use of imbalance you create balance, and as they even say, if the game was just a giant chess game, then you will never see people coming up with new and interesting strategies.

Different types of imbalances or differences. The IS-XL death on loss of 1ST vs C-XL death on both ST would be similar to an IS mech dying to the loss of one leg (like a few MW games) while a Clan mech keeps going until it loses both legs. The other side of the equation of surviving the loss of a IS-XL ST would be the harsher movement and heat penalty.

[Astarot]

Khobai, on 24 January 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

thats not perfect imbalance. if you destroy an ISXL side torso, theyre DEAD.

thats just plain imbalance.

At the same time, a clan mech can't equip a standard engine, so they are permanently handicapped,. while it a pilot's choice to fit a XL engine into their mech, when they could easily have chose to keep the standard engine.

Clan mech engines have a slight increase survivability because they are stuck with that XL engine, while IS mechs can still very easily keep their standard engine in, hell my AC/20 brawler hunchback has both a standard engine, AND slightly bigger then it standard. And I steam around the mech just fine, so a standard engine is hardly useless. IS has more choices, at a cost of slighly more consequences, Clanners have less choices, but their equipment also has slightly more survivability. All I see being done is this thread is simply removing choices and further dumbing down the game

Instead of calling for the XLE to be exactly like the CXLE, maybe you should ask for the Light fusion engine(an IS engine by the way) instead to be pushed forward. though you have to remember that the light fusion engine, was 75% of the standard engine weight, unlike the XLE which was only 50% of the standard engine weight, that being said, it was roughly the same size as a clan XLE, thus should have the same survivability as the clan XLE.

[Khobai]

Quote

At the same time, a clan mech can't equip a standard engine, so they are permanently handicapped

not really. because no clan player would ever voluntarily choose a standard engine in the first place.

[Astarot]

Khobai, on 24 January 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

not really. because no clan player would ever voluntarily choose a standard engine in the first place.

How do you know this? Do you speak ALL of the community, or do you only speak for yourself?

[Khobai]

Quote

How do you know this? Do you speak ALL of the community, or do you only speak for yourself?

Because IIC mechs can use both CXL and STD engines and no one uses STD engines in them. The benefits of the STD engine do not equal the benefits of the CXL. period.

Which is why the ISXL and CXL should both survive side torso destruction. IS structure quirks could then be removed. And the STD engine could get a structure buff to make it a viable alternate to even CXL.

Edited by Khobai, 24 January 2016 - 10:31 AM.

[Astarot]

Khobai, on 24 January 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

Because IIC mechs can use both CXL and STD engines and no one uses STD engines in them

Based on your own personal experience, correct? Or do you have some sort of magical data chart that I don't know of?

[Khobai]

Quote

Based on your own personal experience, correct? Or do you have some sort of magical data chart that I don't know of?

based on my experience, based on what everyone says on the forums, and based on websites like metamechs.com

[Astarot]

Khobai, on 24 January 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

based on my experience, based on what everyone says on the forums, and based on websites like metamechs.com

Right, so I'll fix that to

Quote

based on my experience.

Because you do not speak for everyone that post on the forums, nor do you speak for everyone playing the game, doing so is to be honest, rather daft. The IS XL, IS Standard, and Clan XL all have their strengths and weaknesses, an I won't stand by silently while someone has the audacity to suggest that every equipment should be exact copies of each other, an in turn have no meaning behind making a choice of what you should and shouldn't take. Battletech was always about choices and in turn consequences of those choices, as well as accepting that someone could just have a better build/better skill then someone else, I don't see why MWO should suddenly have to cater to a vocal minority.