165 replies to this topic

[codynyc]

I have been saying this for months now... Increase the time line to 3058 Release the IS omnis Which would have the same characteristics as clan omnis... I posted it to russ on tweeter and no response... I had stated it in town hall and NO ONE says anything...

[Tarl Cabot]

Hotthedd, on 11 November 2015 - 05:39 AM, said:

Your solution of making ISXL engines behave exactly as they were never meant to behave is yet another step away from BattleTech, as is the no heat scale you want to keep. IMO, almost every broken mechanic in this game stems from the steps they have taken AWAY from BattleTech, and this would be another Band-Aid on the emo mummy that MW:O mechanics has become.

MWO has setup the engines to not behave with all the rules. You keep missing that. The boardgame has actual engine crits in the CT/RT/LT but there are no actual engine crits in MWO, thus there should not be any major differences ISXL and CXL. The only differences between the two in MWO with the current settings should be differences heat penalties and the extra side slot taken on each side for the ISXL.

Again though, for the IS it would only mean the current "meta" of laser vomit (chuckles) would be able to increase its speed, a change of a ISML to a ISLL (to counter CERML), while it would open the door for other IS mechs to move up from the bottom tiers a step or two.

Don't forget, on the PTS3, even if part of it goes live some time in the future, it will likely be with a lower percentage Heat efficiency/cap while reducing a majority of the weapon quirks.

And with the way PGI has approached the game, at this time BT/lore should be used as a guideline but not as a crutch. But if PGI were to keep it closer to boardgame, then there would be salvaged Clan equipment. The first time jumped on would be CXL and ERML and CDHS. Just some food for thought.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 November 2015 - 07:36 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

codynyc, on 11 November 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

I have been saying this for months now... Increase the time line to 3058 Release the IS omnis Which would have the same characteristics as clan omnis... I posted it to russ on tweeter and no response... I had stated it in town hall and NO ONE says anything...

what?

You mean IS Omnis with locked IS XL engines regardless of hitbox viability, locked single heatsinks, locked ES/FF? Those completely dead on arrival, utterly useless, worse than the worst mech in MWO things? Why on earth would that help?

Or is that you dont understand that Omni tech is a hinderance vs Battlemech (locked mechlab) and its Clantech vs IS tech that allows Clan mechs to compete with IS?

[DivineEvil]

codynyc, on 11 November 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

I have been saying this for months now... Increase the time line to 3058 Release the IS omnis Which would have the same characteristics as clan omnis... I posted it to russ on tweeter and no response... I had stated it in town hall and NO ONE says anything...

How exactly that is going to adress the 42 currently present IS Battlemechs? IS Omnis aren't going to fix anything.

No wonder neither Russ nor TH auditory payed any attention to it. Your suggestion is worthless and kinda confusing.

Edited by DivineEvil, 11 November 2015 - 07:35 AM.

[Josef Koba]

ChapeL, on 08 November 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

The calls for perfect mirror tech leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is the last recourse of the lazy and incompetent. ( That applies to players and game devellopers alike, as the case may be )

I couldn't agree more. Half the time all I read from both sides of the argument is the underlying desire to make everything the same. Nerf clan this and buff the IS counterpart to achieve "balance."

Personally, I do not want my IS XL engines to be the same as the Clans. I have a choice to bring an XL, which will allow me to bring a bigger engine and/or more firepower. Clans do not. I think that's a fair trade off. Rather than making XL engines the same, either allowing for the loss of a ST in either or making it so the loss of a ST in either results in your mech's destruction, I advocate increasing the penalties for the loss of a ST in a clan mech. In a perfect world, I'd like to see engine crits implemented so that both sides can suffer from losing parts of their engines. That way an IS mech might retain both STs and still die when it's engine suffers three crits. Heck, I'd like to see a much better crit system than the one we have in place now.

As it stands now, I'm relatively ambivalent about the loss of a ST in a clan mech. I would like to see larger heat and mobility penalties if I lose a ST. Not only should I cool slower, but my base heat level should be higher after such a loss. Say my stationary heat baseline on a hot map is 5%. With the loss of a ST make it 12%, and I cool a certain percentage, but a significant one, slower. A busted up engine is going to probably generate more heat and certainly won't be as efficient at cooling. Lower the effective engine rating, too. If I'm sporting an XL300 and lose a ST, I'm basically running on a gimped engine - drop my effective engine rating to 250 or some other number. These types of changes appeal to me vastly more than just "making them both the same," which as ChapeL states is just lazy. I'd rather each maintain their flavor, and a lot of what I hear on here seems to want the removal of that flavor.

Edit: I stated I should cool faster. I meant slower.

Edited by Josef Koba, 11 November 2015 - 07:53 AM.

[Blood Skar]

SO much theorycraft here...

The Clan Mechs have been a huge cashcow for PGI.
When they were released it was OBVIOUS how much better they were compared to IS Mechs.
Hence why all the 12v10 threads started... I think the conclusion was - with mixed teams it wouldnt matter so it remained 12v12.

PGI knew they were better....we knew they were better....according to lore they are supposed to be better....

My thoughts are that PGI need to be careful what they do.
Having sold all these Clan packages/mechs. They now seem to want to nerf Clan mechs into the ground... try taking a Timberwolf and putting energy omnipods on it and see the energy negative quirks....and the Direwolf and the Stormcrow.....I could go on. -20% energy cooldown on the Direwolf for example...using energy omnipods... -16% energy cooldown for Timber....

The nerfs are getting completely and utterly out of hand.

Lasers are next to be nerfed (dont try telling me its not a nerf..lol)

Now XL clan engines being nerfed?

wow...what next?

When I and others stop using lasers and start LRMapocalypse? Will they be FOTM nerfbat?
How about I switch to dual gauss on a Cataphract and get 8 kills like i did a year or so ago? will they be next FOTM nerfed?(thats how i got my Aces badge...in an IS mech..in a PUG match).
Maybe i'll start using a dual AC20 Jaeger? FOTM nerfbat please?

IS already have huge positive quirks....as opposed to some of the frankly crazy negative quirks many Clan mechs have.
I also suggest some of the more skilled players are running Clan mechs...if these players switch back to IS mechs....will we then be calling for IS nerfs ?

How about some of you forumites stop calling for nerfs and look for positive fixes for a freeking change.

How about fddling with armour values for example?(+50% across the board? maybe +25% on Clan mechs...this can be tweaked) Seeing as we now have huge stupidly big Alpha damage compared to 2 or so years ago.

Constant nerfs will just pee players off in the longrun and IS NOT good for the game.

Edited by Blood Skar, 11 November 2015 - 08:47 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Tarl Cabot, on 11 November 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

MWO has setup the engines to not behave with all the rules. You keep missing that. The boardgame has actual engine crits in the CT/RT/LT but there are no actual engine crits in MWO, thus there should not be any major differences ISXL and CXL. The only differences between the two in MWO with the current settings should be differences heat penalties and the extra side slot taken on each side for the ISXL.

I'm not missing that. It is one of the steps that MW:O took AWAY from TT that has led to other problems (this one). There SHOULD be crits.
But there ARE major differences in ISXL and cXL engines. Unfortunately for the IS, losing 3 engine critical destroys the engine (same for clans), and ISXL engines have 3 crits in the side torsos. Therefore, losing the ST with an ISXL = death. It is a player's CHOICE to take that risk. If ISXL engines could survive the loss of a side torso, then WHY would IS chassis run anything else? There would only be outlier builds where it would be better to take a Std. engine.

No. The bigger problem with cXL engines is that there is absolutely no downside to losing a ST, and compared with the ultimate downside for the ISXL, we have imbalance. The best solution, IMO is to add penalties for losing a ST with a cXL engine. It is a better balancing tool than throwing the source rulebook out of the window.

Tarl Cabot, on 11 November 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

Again though, for the IS it would only mean the current "meta" of laser vomit (chuckles) would be able to increase its speed, a change of a ISML to a ISLL (to counter CERML), while it would open the door for other IS mechs to move up from the bottom tiers a step or two.

Don't forget, on the PTS3, even if part of it goes live some time in the future, it will likely be with a lower percentage Heat efficiency/cap while reducing a majority of the weapon quirks.

And with the way PGI has approached the game, at this time BT/lore should be used as a guideline but not as a crutch. But if PGI were to keep it closer to boardgame, then there would be salvaged Clan equipment. The first time jumped on would be CXL and ERML and CDHS. Just some food for thought.

Then use it as a guideline. But don't introduce power creep by over buffing an engine past what it was ever intended to do.

I have no problem with mixtech, actually. Although further in the timeline, and not purchasable with C-bills or MC. And you would have to separate accounts into an IS acct and a Clan acct, so it seems unlikely.

[Widowmaker1981]

Josef Koba, on 11 November 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

I couldn't agree more. Half the time all I read from both sides of the argument is the underlying desire to make everything the same. Nerf clan this and buff the IS counterpart to achieve "balance."

Personally, I do not want my IS XL engines to be the same as the Clans. I have a choice to bring an XL, which will allow me to bring a bigger engine and/or more firepower. Clans do not. I think that's a fair trade off. Rather than making XL engines the same, either allowing for the loss of a ST in either or making it so the loss of a ST in either results in your mech's destruction, I advocate increasing the penalties for the loss of a ST in a clan mech. In a perfect world, I'd like to see engine crits implemented so that both sides can suffer from losing parts of their engines. That way an IS mech might retain both STs and still die when it's engine suffers three crits. Heck, I'd like to see a much better crit system than the one we have in place now.

As it stands now, I'm relatively ambivalent about the loss of a ST in a clan mech. I would like to see larger heat and mobility penalties if I lose a ST. Not only should I cool slower, but my base heat level should be higher after such a loss. Say my stationary heat baseline on a hot map is 5%. With the loss of a ST make it 12%, and I cool a certain percentage, but a significant one, slower. A busted up engine is going to probably generate more heat and certainly won't be as efficient at cooling. Lower the effective engine rating, too. If I'm sporting an XL300 and lose a ST, I'm basically running on a gimped engine - drop my effective engine rating to 250 or some other number. These types of changes appeal to me vastly more than just "making them both the same," which as ChapeL states is just lazy. I'd rather each maintain their flavor, and a lot of what I hear on here seems to want the removal of that flavor.

Edit: I stated I should cool faster. I meant slower.

it used to be reasonable, imo, to say that the locked engines / DHS / FF / ES / JJs on clan mechs was sufficient balance for their XL engines being far better. However, now that PGI are releasing fully customisable clan IIC mechs, that argument no longer works, and their XL can not continue to be so much better. You cannot apply very significant nerfs to the clan XL (such that you might consider taking a STD) because the Omnimechs that have no choice and big side torsi hitboxes (all of them) would instantly become rubbish. Think XL stalker. That leaves the only remaining sensible option being to buff IS XLs - they dont have to be QUITE as good, but they do have to survive ST loss. PGI caused this by announcing IIC mechs, but its done now.

[codynyc]

Widowmaker1981, on 11 November 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

what?

You mean IS Omnis with locked IS XL engines regardless of hitbox viability, locked single heatsinks, locked ES/FF? Those completely dead on arrival, utterly useless, worse than the worst mech in MWO things? Why on earth would that help?

Or is that you dont understand that Omni tech is a hinderance vs Battlemech (locked mechlab) and its Clantech vs IS tech that allows Clan mechs to compete with IS?

IS omnis - Locked engines , destorying one side doesnt not kill the mech, who said ANYTHING about single heatsinks?
IE - http://www.sarna.net...vatar_(OmniMech)

So if you were born in 81 Stop speaking like a pubescent $#it and check your facts.

[WarHippy]

Khobai, on 07 November 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

How is it not fun?

The game was actually more fun when it was just IS vs IS and everything was the same.

The game was less fun after clans were added.

So the evidence doesnt support what youre saying at all. Making things the same, makes them balanced, which makes the game MORE fun.

That is purely a subjective opinion. Personally, I have more fun with the Clan mechs around than i did before they were added, and this is coming from someone who mostly plays his IS mechs because they just feel better than most of the Clan mechs. Having everything homogenized is not fun for a lot of people, and that is what he was getting at.

Khobai, on 07 November 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

ISXL and CXL should be the same. period. Its the only way to balance mech survivability for both sides.

I disagree, but I would be okay with making things a little closer. When a clan XL loses a side torso keep it as is, but when a IS XL loses a side torso let it live but drop its speed by 50% and heat dissipation by 20-30%. That way Clan engines retain at least a little advantage considering most of them are locked unlike the IS version.

[Widowmaker1981]

codynyc, on 11 November 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

IS omnis - Locked engines , destorying one side doesnt not kill the mech, who said ANYTHING about single heatsinks?
IE - http://www.sarna.net...vatar_(OmniMech)

So if you were born in 81 Stop speaking like a pubescent $#it and check your facts.

An assault speed 70 tonner with a locked XL engine which, being an IS XL engine, in the current game WILL die on 1 ST loss, with no endo steel? Thanks for illustrating my point i guess.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 11 November 2015 - 11:54 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

Hotthedd, on 11 November 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

Therefore, losing the ST with an ISXL = death. It is a player's CHOICE to take that risk. If ISXL engines could survive the loss of a side torso, then WHY would IS chassis run anything else? There would only be outlier builds where it would be better to take a Std. engine.

Now hear, before Clans this was true. We had a choice to gamble on an XL to build more of a glass cannon. That was fine. Even cool...

But. After clans were introduced, getting both survivability AND 10+ extra tons on their good Omnis for hardware that choice has changed. There is a new performance standard. IS mechs now have the choice between two handicaps: 1) ST death or 2) slow speed and/or 5-10 tons less hardware. There is no power creep to be had, that choice is only about how to best mitigate the handicap that the tech differences place upon you. Thanks to full customization and quirks you can mitigate a lot of it, but not all. Now they want to remove the strongest quirks and move away from quirks in general.... therefore the tech lines must come closer.

This perspective is quite important to consider when we discuss this imo.

[Hotthedd]

Duke Nedo, on 11 November 2015 - 01:33 PM, said:

Now hear, before Clans this was true. We had a choice to gamble on an XL to build more of a glass cannon. That was fine. Even cool...

But. After clans were introduced, getting both survivability AND 10+ extra tons on their good Omnis for hardware that choice has changed. There is a new performance standard. IS mechs now have the choice between two handicaps: 1) ST death or 2) slow speed and/or 5-10 tons less hardware. There is no power creep to be had, that choice is only about how to best mitigate the handicap that the tech differences place upon you. Thanks to full customization and quirks you can mitigate a lot of it, but not all. Now they want to remove the strongest quirks and move away from quirks in general.... therefore the tech lines must come closer.

This perspective is quite important to consider when we discuss this imo.

Agreed. They should come closer.

There are two ways I see to accomplish this: Buff ISXL or nerf cXL.
Buffs lead to power creep and obsolescence.

There is also a guiding strategy to be considered. Namely, lore and the original rules.
IMO, if a closer balance can be achieved WITHOUT breaking BT rules or lore, that is the correct path to take. If it cannot, so be it.

Therefore, cXL side torso destruction incurring heat and movement penalties (lore friendly) is the best option.

[Tarl Cabot]

Hotthedd, on 11 November 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

I'm not missing that. It is one of the steps that MW:O took AWAY from TT that has led to other problems (this one). There SHOULD be crits.
But there ARE major differences in ISXL and cXL engines. Unfortunately for the IS, losing 3 engine critical destroys the engine (same for clans), and ISXL engines have 3 crits in the side torsos. Therefore, losing the ST with an ISXL = death. It is a player's CHOICE to take that risk. If ISXL engines could survive the loss of a side torso, then WHY would IS chassis run anything else? There would only be outlier builds where it would be better to take a Std. engine.

On the 3 crits, true for the board game, but it was also based on RNG/dice and not pinpoint accuracy, which is another discussion. Which IS mechs would see a power creep, especially if the current quirks are reduced/removed (as per PTS3)?

Right now, for those IS mechs that do take the ISXL and are competitive do so primarily for the speed (firestarter as example) while other competitive laser vomit mechs are simply slower than their Clan brethren. With PGI intention to modify the Skill Tree percentages, many IS mechs that can field ballistics have to drop their standard engine to low numbers/slower mech to equip anything meaningful or take an XL to free up weight and keep/increase speed but becomes a glass cannon.

Quote

No. The bigger problem with cXL engines is that there is absolutely no downside to losing a ST, and compared with the ultimate downside for the ISXL, we have imbalance. The best solution, IMO is to add penalties for losing a ST with a cXL engine. It is a better balancing tool than throwing the source rulebook out of the window.

Then use it as a guideline. But don't introduce power creep by over buffing an engine past what it was ever intended to do.


I have no problem with mixtech, actually. Although further in the timeline, and not purchasable with C-bills or MC. And you would have to separate accounts into an IS acct and a Clan acct, so it seems unlikely.

My idea of mixtech is salvaged equipment, noted as salvaged equipment, basically be weapons tagged differently which do not perform the same as the original equipment. But what if PGI continues to keep that line of no mixtech? That would keep a majority of IS mechs out of the competitive line up without major quirks, even then...

The end though is to keep things interesting for incoming new players to want to stay, have more positive comments than negative ones and purchase things. To make things "appear" to be common sense for those who do not initially get into the "lore" of the game instead of seeing a sharp contrast between ISXL/loss of ST/death and CXL/loss of ST/alive but some sort of penalty. If they do get into the lore later on, then there would be some understanding that moving the game from a boardgame played with dice to a 3D computer game in a purely PVP environment meant looking at how convert things and make it workable.

For myself, /shrugs, I will make due until I cannot do it anymore, but for the newbies coming in, MWO already has a high learning curve but the tutorial is the right step and being improved on but I want PGI to be able to keep more of them than not. MWO needs to develop and keep a healthy community, which means more funds for PGI to keep its doors open while continually adding and improving the game.

But hey, this isn't on Twitter, so it has been good discussion it, even though....

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I'll say it again:

This game is not TT. Trying to recreate TT in the form of a realtime simulator CANNOT work.

Working within the limitations that this presents and the limits of PGI, a company that needs to make money for this game to survive, a GREAT amount of deviation from TT rules MUST exist.

The attachment to TT rules is preventing movement forward.

Moreover, the game already deviates so much as to make reconciling the systems we have with TT rules impossible without making a fully new game. That's not going to happen (anytime soon).

This game doesn't need the same rules, it just needs to retain a certain flavor and be FUN.

Nerfs are sometimes necessary (Clan lasers), but generally un-fun. And people spent money on Clan 'Mechs. So, nerfs to that 1 side are devaluing, as well.

Thus, buffs to IS durability are a better solution.

@DivineEvil:

I'm not going to address every point of you made in your response. But, I will say that your position is highly subjective. Not everything is "either/or".

There are shades of gray.

The assertion that you can't have two way imbalance is just not true.

If we buff IS structure, XL using IS 'Mechs still die on ST destruction. But now, it's that much harder to destroy other locations on IS 'Mechs, too, and all Clan hit locations become fragile by comparison.

How each side plays is minimally affected, but equally skilled players will always survive better in the IS 'Mech. You haven't achieved balance, you've achieved further unbalance.

IS players (not diehard BT fans, but normal players) will still feel that the loss of a single ST = death sucks. Clan players will feel that their 'Mechs being made of glass is ridiculously undercutting the advantages they retain.

How the casual player base reacts to a change like that in the long-term is frighteningly unknown for a company like PGI.

Your assertion that "Creating a baseline in IS/Clan balance is IMPOSSIBLE" is just your opinion. There are many ways that we can create baselines that can be applied to both IS and Clans equally without creating sameness.

Weapon value ratios, for example. Making IS and Clan XLs function similarly, for another. Increasing the durability of standard equipment across both techlines, for a third.

Not wanting to do something doesn't make it impossible.

We can still maintain features like the omnipod system. We can still have Clan range and damage higher. We can still make IW equipment differentiated.

That's just to name a few.

You mention StarCraft as an example of balance. But do you think StarCraft didn't start as mathematical balance? Each side has units to fill every role to counter other roles. Their unit damage and HP are carefully calculated to ensure no side has a clear advantage in any aspect. StarCraft is a game that was newly built from the ground up around careful checks and balances.

MWO, on the other hand, is a new incarnation of a series with a long history. And people insist on having the past values implemented in the new game.

The affect? MWO is not allowed to stand as its own game and is thus prevented from achieving balance.

[Repasy Cooper]

Bottom line: (re)introduce crits to engine, gyro, actuators, sensors, life support & cockpit = many problems solved.

• Engine crits represent reactor shieldings. Lose three of them - your reactor deadlines.
  
• Gyro crits increase reticle shake during movement, making it almost impossible to fire accurately unless stationary.
  
• Leg actuator crits decrease max speed by -15% each, to a maximum of -90% speed.
  
• Hip actuator crits decrease torso turn by -30% each, to a maximum of -60% torso turn.
  
• Arm actuator crits decrease reticle movement by -15% each, to a maximum of -60% reticle movement.
  
• Hand actuators don't do anything. No melee so...
  
• Shoulder actuator crits decrease torso yaw by -30% each, to a maximum of -60% torso yaw.
  
• Cockpit crit prevents the use of ejection seat in community warfare. Also removes hud and disables zoom.
  
• Sensor crits slows down targeting time, slows down lock time, speeds up target decay and decreases sensor range by 50% each, up to a maximum of 100%.
  
• Life support crits causes atmospheric decompression on space maps (aka. death in 60 seconds). Also causes loss of heat shielding for cockpit (aka. death on overheat).

​Not only does this fix the engine debate by making all engines destroyed with three crits, it also does that in a way that does not focus on IS buffs OR Clan nerfs. It is a mechanic readjustment ACROSS THE BOARD. I honestly believe this is the singular solution.

Edited by Repasy, 11 November 2015 - 07:51 PM.

[Pjwned]

Duke Nedo, on 10 November 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

This is incorrect. LFE is just a heavier version of cXL without any benefits. That will not create parity, but I can see that PGI will go for it because it will be a huuuuge cbills-sink.

It will create parity when cXL is also appropriately toned down.

Quote

Giving ST survival to IS is more or less necessary to balance the factions.

No it isn't, IS XL engines are fine as they are and it's the clan XL engines that are out of line, it is not that IS XL engines are too weak and clan XL engines are fine.

Quote

For the typical mech, running a STD engine equals a ~10 tons handicap. Taste it for a while. 10 tons. The Summoner is "crippled" by 5 tons of locked Jumpjets and 3.5 tons for missing Endo. That's totals 8.5 tons handicap and you get functional JJs in the bargain. Further, at 350 engine rating, having that speed + survivability is worth 14.5 tons and not 10 tons.... That's how big the difference is.

Now, knowing this, IS players still go with STD engines in many cases to get the needed durability. That's how important ST survivability is, and that is what it costs. Fixing IS mechs is not the power creep, the power creep was clan invasion. Giving IS ST survivability now is merely a way to reduce the need for super-quirks. It's a way of putting the tech lines closer to each other. Completely necessary in my opinion for the future of this game.

The only other way to realistically do it that I can think of is by giving ALL IS mechs extra structure/armor, but then we're really just back to a different flavor of quirks so we didn't achieve anything but a new quirk pass.

That's partly why the LFE would be introduced, so that IS mechs also have an option for a lower weight engine that survives a side torso loss, with the added benefit of the LFE not being completely unbalanced like your suggestion would be.

As far as "fixing" IS mechs by introducing insane power creep and saying it's not power creep, that is a laughably bad argument.

Edited by Pjwned, 11 November 2015 - 07:55 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

We don't really need redundant options/tech.

If IS and Clan XL engines function the same, but IS standard is more durable, true parity is achieved and meaningful choice is created.

Toning down Clan XL is not a great idea for the simple reason that it devalues Clantech. People who spent money will feel cheated. But, no one really hates it when you give them something better for the same cost!

It's also not really power-creep, because Clans already have this "power" so the "creep" is already done.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Khobai, on 06 November 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

Just make IS XL and CXL equal and be done with it.

And buff the STD engine somehow so itd still be worth using.

so buff the I.S Xl, and buff the I.S standard engine. So basically buff the mechs you use

[Khobai]

Quote

so buff the I.S Xl, and buff the I.S standard engine. So basically buff the mechs you use

yes I use IS mechs. thats why I have a jade falcon banner

you figured out my secret plan to buff IS mechs I dont even play.

way2go.

Quote

• 
  
  • Engine crits represent reactor shieldings. Lose three of them - your reactor deadlines.
    
  • Gyro crits increase reticle shake during movement, making it almost impossible to fire accurately unless stationary.
    
  • Leg actuator crits decrease max speed by -15% each, to a maximum of -90% speed.
    
  • Hip actuator crits decrease torso turn by -30% each, to a maximum of -60% torso turn.
    
  • Arm actuator crits decrease reticle movement by -15% each, to a maximum of -60% reticle movement.
    
  • Hand actuators don't do anything. No melee so...
    
  • Shoulder actuator crits decrease torso yaw by -30% each, to a maximum of -60% torso yaw.
    
  • Cockpit crit prevents the use of ejection seat in community warfare. Also removes hud and disables zoom.
    
  • Sensor crits slows down targeting time, slows down lock time, speeds up target decay and decreases sensor range by 50% each, up to a maximum of 100%.
    
  • Life support crits causes atmospheric decompression on space maps (aka. death in 60 seconds). Also causes loss of heat shielding for cockpit (aka. death on overheat).
    
    
    
    
    
    

A lot of these are extremely bad ideas. TTK is already pathetic. And you wanna make it worse with these crits? no thanks.



Reset TTK back to battletech levels first, then maybe we can talk about debilitating crits.

Edited by Khobai, 11 November 2015 - 09:41 PM.