165 replies to this topic

[Duke Nedo]

Looks like the train left the station. We got another quirk pass, end of story. :-(

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yup, a new round of arbitrary bandaids! Hopefully they turn out at least more balanced than the last set.

[Khobai]

im actually pretty happy with the new quirks for the most part.

I like that they brought back weapon quirks and got rid of the dumb sensor quirks until they could do them properly...

I dont like ECM not being fixed though... or the fact the Atlas still hasnt gotten side torso armor quirks(still structure quirks) to protect its weapons from crits.

[Duke Nedo]

Khobai, on 14 November 2015 - 03:32 AM, said:

im actually pretty happy with the new quirks for the most part.

I like that they brought back weapon quirks and got rid of the dumb sensor quirks until they could do them properly...

I dont like ECM not being fixed though... or the fact the Atlas still hasnt gotten side torso armor quirks(still structure quirks) to protect its weapons from crits.

I agree, the new quirk pass is good. It's only disappointing that it ended up "only" being another quirk pass after all the fancy talk about rebalance and game play will be completely different... another quirk pass was needed, but something like a year overdue. Feels like another opportunity missed for me.

[DivineEvil]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 13 November 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

Your post is mostly just inflammatory. Please try to refrain from the personal. You're not Donald Trump!

I'm not personal at any point. I'm always directing my attention to the arguments and ideas, not their author. If argument is bad, doesn't mean the author is bad. It's just some of your arguments really getting me frustrated. Especially the one with double-sided imbalance. This is like the most bizarre gameplay concept I've seen in recent years.

Quote

Durability is the single most valuable thing a 'Mech can possess.

It's not. Firepower is one extra thing, that mech can posess. Mobility is second extra thing, that mech can posess. Added durability just amplifies those two aspects, just as those two aspects when added are amplifying the base durability. Durability on it's own means nothing in a picture of MWO combat.

If you don't have firepower to bring, durability is more help to your enemies than to your allies, and if you don't have mobility to keep yourself in an appropriate position, then your durability is a question of focus fire and backstabbing. The most valuable thing is an effectively balanced tandem of these three things working together, which is why Heavy mechs are favored over Assaults basically 24/7. These three parameters are value-wise equal, and it's PGI concern to add InfoTech as a fourth one in the mix.

Quote

The whole reason for this discussion is that IS is currently not as durable as Clans. Swinging it in the other direction and making IS more (functionally) durable than Clans is not a real solution, it just keeps that pendulum swinging.

The whole point behind IS/Clan balance issue, is that if not all, most Clan mechs overpower the IS mechs by Durability, Firepower and Mobility altogether, and pay nothing in return. Such as two cars participating in the same rase, yet where one has better Acceleration, and better Top Speed, and better Handling, than another one, yet expected to perform as equal.

What I'm trying to advocate for, is giving IS mechs a single advantage across those three aspects, where it counters most if not all of the Clan mech advantages, and where you're now can tell the choice between IS mech and same-mass Clan mech is roughly equivalent.

The whole reason for this discussion, is that people are choosing to see that single general problem as a dozen of separate issues, probably coz it's easier to argue about them that way.

Duke Nedo, on 14 November 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:

Looks like the train left the station. We got another quirk pass, end of story. :-(

Too bad. I had higher expectations for them.

On one hand I can see how my point about additional structure is going trough in some regards, with all those additional structure quirks. On the other, I've expected Quirks to be used in a completely different direction.

In the end, we're just end up with more quirks, after all...

Edited by DivineEvil, 14 November 2015 - 07:00 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 13 November 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

Lore is the story and the flavor that comes out of it. TT rules are just a ruleset for ONE (1) game. We don't need to even try to adhere to TT rules.

Let this game stand as it's own thing.

Then why go through all of the bother of obtaining the IP rights?

Why restrict the game to only having the human race? Adherence to a time line? Any of that?

It seems ditching the BattleTech name would free up more money and allow greater creativity.

Obviously, your mind is set on the issue, so I only have one question:
How many current players would it be acceptable to lose by moving further away from BT?

[Tarl Cabot]

Soon this thread will be moved to the archive section

[Widowmaker1981]

Hotthedd, on 14 November 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Then why go through all of the bother of obtaining the IP rights?

Why restrict the game to only having the human race? Adherence to a time line? Any of that?

It seems ditching the BattleTech name would free up more money and allow greater creativity.

Obviously, your mind is set on the issue, so I only have one question:
How many current players would it be acceptable to lose by moving further away from BT?

Again, Battletech lore and CBT tabletop rules are NOT the same thing. It is entirely possible to adhere tio the spirit of Battletech lore without slavishly following the ruleset of a game from an entirely different genre.

The one part of both lore and CBT rules we cant follow is clan mechs being blatantly superior, because that doesnt work in a game where players only control one mech at a time.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 14 November 2015 - 03:20 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Widowmaker1981, on 14 November 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

Again, Battletech lore and CBT tabletop rules are NOT the same thing. It is entirely possible to adhere tio the spirit of Battletech lore without slavishly following the ruleset of a game from an entirely different genre.

The one part of both lore and CBT rules we cant follow is clan mechs being blatantly superior, because that doesnt work in a game where players only control one mech at a time.

There is a difference between slavishly following rules and not fundamentally changing them. ISXL engines are destroyed when a ST is destroyed, cXL engines are not. This is true in TT AND the lore.

There are ways to balance without breaking this mechanic.

So I will ask you: How many current players are you willing to lose over this? For many it would be the last straw.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I saw the Clan XL ST destruction = -20% movement performance! That's a good step in the right direction. Just doesn't quite make up for IS ST destruction = death, though.

@Hotthedd:

There​ may be other ways to achieve balance. But, none are so clean, simple, effective or logical as making them function the same.

Other ways sidestep the problem and solve it indirectly, where there is no good reason to do so. Many "solutions" may actually create unexpected further problems.

Moreover, as PGI is trying to expand their market, I doubt that changing IS and Clan XLs to function similarly would cause people to leave​. In fact, TT is so old school that I doubt anyone born after 1985 even cares about TT rules. More likely, they know the franchise from other video games.

Since many of these deviated from TT rules, or even discarded them altogether (as lots of video game franchises change their systems all the time), most younger players could probably care less about sticking to 1 facet of an "ancient" ruleset and more about balance within the game itself.

It would be easy to find out: PGI has only to do a survey and give players an injection of some cosmetic in-game item on survey completion.

For the life of me, I can't understand why game companies don't do more directed surveys.

@DivineEvil:
Let me see if I can explain what I mean about two-way imbalance.

Take racing, for example. There's a good reason why racing is categorized into classes the way it is: balance. Different classes just can't compete with each other in fairness. There must be some level of similarity, some rules within which they compete.

Consider cars vs motorcycles. They both go really fast, but cars are clearly able to achieve higher speeds. Motorcycles on the other hand are better for handling (if the rider is skilled). but they don't compete because of multiple imbalances.

Even within the same class, there are rules and restrictions on what you can and can't do to the car/motorcycle to prevent unfair competition. Some classes even use physical restrictor plates to prevent going beyond a certain speed.

Why? Balance. Without theses restrictions they are unbalanced in a number of ways: muti-way imbalance.

Take dogs, for another example. The Bloodhound has the best nose in the dog world. The Alaskan Malamute is perhaps the best sled dog in the world. They are both dogs, but to call them balanced would be false. They are unbalanced, two ways. Beyond that, there are a number of differences that make them uncomparable. That's why Best of Breed is considered most important to breeders.

Point is, if things are too disparate, their not balanced at all. They're simply unbalanced multiple ways.

As to the comment about bringing firepower and mobility. Absolutely, a 'Mech needs those things. I didn't say that firepower or mobility were unimportant, only that durability is more important than other things.

If you can last longer, you can dish out more damage; even if your firepower isn't so much as another (dead, because not so durable) 'Mech.

Thus, I absolutely am suggesting reducing the differences between IS and Clans - in some aspects. But, I would also like to emphasize the differences in others.

This to ensure that neither Clans nor IS has clear advantage for anything.

[Tarl Cabot]

Hotthedd, on 14 November 2015 - 07:56 PM, said:

There is a difference between slavishly following rules and not fundamentally changing them. ISXL engines are destroyed when a ST is destroyed, cXL engines are not. This is true in TT AND the lore.

There are ways to balance without breaking this mechanic.

So I will ask you: How many current players are you willing to lose over this? For many it would be the last straw.

In lore and TT there are actual engine crits, and very rarely is an entire side torso completely destroyed when an IS mech is equipped with an XL engine. In MWO there aren't any actual engine crits, and even if there was some sort of CoF that would primarily reduce long range damage but a

As for being the last straw, iie, I do not see that. Why? Atm PGI one statement that would allow it is their grounds on keeping IS and Clan tech separated, no salvage of any kind. Would all of your fellow clanners run away if PGI were to introduce CW salvage? I mean, that is part of the lore/TT..hai? "edit"

As a "edit" Clanner, what IS mechs would you fear that if it could equip an XL engine and you could not destroy it by blowing through a side torso with your TW/SC? And why? Try not to include the current IS "meta" as the only thing that would primarily change would be the mech's speed. For the few already has to use an XL, it would fall in the more durable category.

For non-weapon quirks, are many of those quirks due to the realization that for a mech to be more effective, it needs to equip an IS XL engine?

[Hotthedd]

So answer the question.

How many? What is a good rate of attrition in your minds? I do not know how long either of you have been around MW:O, but very many players have left. Every single time PGI moves away from their promises, and away from BattleTech, and away from the simulation aspect, some people leave the game. Some come back, but many are gone for good.

Very rarely is it even over ONE thing, but more due to a perceived pattern, or simply being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I am telling you that fundamentally changing ISXL engines would be another such thing. Doing so would lose players.

@Brandarr, Is it worth alienating those who were born before 1985 to chase after, with no guarantee of success, the newer generation?

@Tarl, Then why not "simply" add critical space hits? And for the record, I am not a "clanner". My unit is currently contracted with a clan, I play both techs equally. I am not arguing for one side or the other, I am arguing against fundamentally changing MW:O from the BT universe into another generic mech-skinned shooter. That would kill this game.

So, how many? 500? 200? 50? 1? Where is the line drawn?

[DivineEvil]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 14 November 2015 - 11:44 PM, said:

Let me see if I can explain what I mean about two-way imbalance.
(Detailed explanation follows)

Yes, but by your racing example (which I will adhere to, due to less technical disparity from the discussion), this is exactly where the problem arises. Here in MWO we had a street-racing competition of standard-customer cars. We have different general-market cars, than can be purchased for modest price and tuned/upgraded to the racer's needs with commonly-available parts and modifications.

But for no reason at all, the whole line of sport cars had became accepted to the race, with finely tuned internals, lighter composite material bodies and powerful engines. So, now competetive people are virtually forced to sell-off their customer cars to purchase one of those sport cars, while people who grown accustomed and attached to their old friends are now bound to compete with those sport cars in the same races with initial disadvantages.

So in that analogy, many people are promoting class separations (10/12 matches, or only ISvsIS, Clan vs Clan, etc.), while most people, including you, are speaking for tearing those sport cars apart and replacing their internals with stock parts, one by one, making them nothing more than a customer car in shiny body. So I am, while looking at it, hold to the position, that we just have to give these underdog cars something to compensate for their limitations, where otherwise both types of cars are rather equal. Say, give them a top-notch suspension and high-performance rubber with advanced traction. This would both allow for sport cars to use their own strengths on straight segments, while customer cars would be able to compete with them with better handling and higher performance and endurance on curves and turns. This way both types of cars are equal in the same race, but each has it's own features, which makes them competetive, and the choice between the two is completely up to the racer himself. That is balance.

But from your perspective, it looks like those two will not ever be able to compete, as if we're only drift-racing, where those modified customer cars will suddenly make sport cars meaningless, which is not the case. So I refuse to understand, how in a environment, where both kinds of cars can perform on equal terms, promoting their equality is going to make an imbalanced race even more imbalanced, and at which point it morphs into a two-way imbalance.

Quote

Point is, if things are too disparate, their not balanced at all. They're simply unbalanced multiple ways.

Yes, but MWO's problem is not that IS and Clan are too disparate. It's that Clans are superior to IS in every given aspect. They both still are built around the same collection of values and dependencies. It's not like Clans has completely different weapons, or that they work on completely different mechanics. They just has better values and features, and limitations that they get in return do not balance those out nearly enough.

Quote

As to the comment about bringing firepower and mobility. Absolutely, a 'Mech needs those things. I didn't say that firepower or mobility were unimportant, only that durability is more important than other things.

I wouldn't be so sure. The game provides the choice between all three aspects, and each player chooses for his own liking. I, for one, prefer firepower over mobility and mobility over durability. Thus, in my vision of MWO, I'd always choose a fire-support heavy over an Assault, and a Light mech over the brawler Medium. So it is more appropriate to presume, that durability is most important by your own personal preferences, nothing else.

Quote

If you can last longer, you can dish out more damage; even if your firepower isn't so much as another (dead, because not so durable) 'Mech.

If you have higher firepower, you can do just as much in shorter time, even if your durability isn't so much as another. And if you have higher mobility, you can survive higher firepower as if you were more durable, and you can backstab a much more durable opponent. So I can't see where exactly the durability is prime over there. It's only the question of how much of those are available for customization. Light mechs do not have mcuh durability to spare, but they can exchange part of their mobility for firepower, while Assaults do not have much extra mobility, but they can trade some of their dirability for additional firepower, and vise versa.

What mechs are better or worse for, should be determined with quirks, which would make different mechs both within IS and Clan pools to perform differently from one-another. But if Clans are going to perform better in some regards, then IS has to be able to perform better in others. There's no way around it.

Quote

Thus, I absolutely am suggesting reducing the differences between IS and Clans - in some aspects. But, I would also like to emphasize the differences in others.

Well, I haven't seen anything of what you've said emphatising the differences. So far, all you've suggested is normalizing them. You should probably give an example of a framework you willing to see as final result, like an example of IS and Clan mechs of the same tonnage taken for comparison, with differences you want to see. I don't think that my suggestion is complex enough for me to be required to do the same comparison.

Edited by DivineEvil, 15 November 2015 - 11:15 AM.

[Kael Posavatz]

The 20% reduction to engine-affected values with the destruction of a side torso for Clan Mechs is both an interesting mechanic, and a dangerous one.

It is interesting because implicit in it is that PGI has decided to institute engine-damage.

It is dangerous because PGI has decided to implement engine damage for only one side.

PGI should follow up this idea because it would go a long way towards addressing the engine imbalance. IS mechs would get more compact (harder to hit) engines, while the Clans would be easier to hit owing to their larger size, but require more damage before they fail. Both sets should have incremented damage effects, with the scale perhaps a little steeper for the Clans in general. Quirks as needed to make mechs flavorful, influencing the ease (or lack thereof) with which an engine takes damage, and the severity of that damage's effect on mech performance.

It should be kept in mind that IS players can choose to outfit their mechs with a diverse array of equipment. This is one of their strengths, and exploration of it should be encouraged.

At the same time some there needs to be some recognition for how locked equipment is dictating what mechs are brought (and thus which mechs people complain about most strongly). For example, the Stormcrow. People say it is over powered. And it is. It can energy/ballistic better than the Shadowhawk, energy/missile better than the Griffin (though it lack's the 2N's ECM), despite the Crow's lack of JJ. And it is almost as fast as any medium mech the IS can bring.

But consider what the Clans have in 50- and 60-tons.

The Nova lacks ES, FF, and comes with 5 hard locked JJs. It can laser-vom well, especially small lasers. It is also quite large compared to IS mechs near its tonnage. I don't think there are many who would consider it over-powered to the Hunchback or Centurion. The Enforcer and Treb, maybe, but even there I would argue that those mechs are underpowered for their tonnage.

For 60-tons the Clans have the Mad Dog. It has FF, which generally leaves it space-rich and mass-poor. It is taller than the Dragon, with similarly large side torsos (larger, actually). It can missile-spam well in a game that does not generally reward missile spam. It can splat-and-streak, but at any kind of range that build is useless, and it takes time to streak effectively against targets of more than ~35 tons. It has symmetrical hardpoints that inhibit using one side to shield, and its non-missile hardpoints are low-slung.

Given the choice of these three mechs which would you choose?

Meanwhile the IS has 10-12 mechs in the same tonnage that I commonly see in CW and fill a similar role to the Stormcrow, and that, competently handled, will eat a Nova for lunch and use the legs off a Mad Dog to pick parts out of its teeth.

[Kyrs]

The 20% nerf after losing a side for the clan XL was long over due. It pretty much a death sentence for the artic cheata once it lose a side torso and it will take some well executed exit plan to survive this.

This change drastically the tactics that can be used against clans and open up new roles for light and medium. It will be extremely easy to out maneuver a dire-wolf and finish him by shoot in the back his last torso.

The weapons quick of the IS may need to go after this nerf. Which I welcome, since I can play weapons that I preferred.

[Tarl Cabot]

Well, I am a drac on tour of the IS atm

Quote

@Tarl, Then why not "simply" add critical space hits? And for the record, I am not a "clanner". My unit is currently contracted with a clan, I play both techs equally. I am not arguing for one side or the other, I am arguing against fundamentally changing MW:O from the BT universe into another generic mech-skinned shooter. That would kill this game.

There really are no mech skinned shooter games out that that comes close to the intricacies of BT, and none of the previous MW titles have even come close to successfully porting BT in its entirety in a 3D environment.

Quote

Original MW IS 3025 tech, no mech lab. Not able to locate info if engine crits were possible, as I do not remember.
MW2 - Clan mechs - players did not have to pilot/worry about IS mechs/components. Unable to locate anything about engine crit hits.
MW3 - Clan/IS mechs - no engine crits nor was an IS-XL mech destroyed with loss of side torso.
MW4 - Clan/IS mechs - no engine crits nor was an IS-XL mech destroyed with loss of side torso.

No Clan mechs, no Star League mechs, no mech lab.
GEnie Kesmai's EGA MPBT 3025 - I seriously do not remember engine crits, as the game was primarily PVE
AOL/Gamestorm Kesmai' MPBT Solaris (combat engine meant for SVGA MPBT 3025)
EA Kesmai MPBT 3025 - Found the Player's Guide - though no clans/mech lab to deal with.
Sensors
Screen display garbled
Gyros
'Mech unable to stand
Engine
'Mech destroyed
Life Support
'Mech destroyed
Jump Jets
'Mech unable to jump

Having played this IP since 1990 (I was a toddler, I really was!! /wishful thinking..) I have enjoyed most of the approaches taken by each company but what has really kept me coming back is the BT Universe as a whole, along with mechs dishing out and taking lots of punishment before being obliterated.

But then PGI has not acknowledged if they thought it would be plausible but they acknowledge and have set for the PTS4 a movement penalty to Clan mechs. Like the MPBT games, the devs are looking at improving and adding to MWO but with adding the Clans, it has put them in a difficult position for many reasons. Like any other game, there will always be those who are not happy when the status quo changes.

Cannot wait for the PTS4 to start, but the bad thing is the 4vs4 in the testing environment because you do not get the real sense of how things will actually play out on the live server w/12vs12. Or it will be more desirable to make sure you are not a Clan loner so that you can hopefully retreat and be covered by your team mates. The 4vs4 takes you almost instantly into a deathball, whether you want to or not. I wonder if they could vary the match up from a 4v4 to a 5vs5 or 6vs6.....

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 November 2015 - 01:15 PM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Hotthedd, on 15 November 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

So answer the question.

How many? What is a good rate of attrition in your minds? I do not know how long either of you have been around MW:O, but very many players have left. Every single time PGI moves away from their promises, and away from BattleTech, and away from the simulation aspect, some people leave the game. Some come back, but many are gone for good.

Very rarely is it even over ONE thing, but more due to a perceived pattern, or simply being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I am telling you that fundamentally changing ISXL engines would be another such thing. Doing so would lose players.

@Brandarr, Is it worth alienating those who were born before 1985 to chase after, with no guarantee of success, the newer generation?

@Tarl, Then why not "simply" add critical space hits? And for the record, I am not a "clanner". My unit is currently contracted with a clan, I play both techs equally. I am not arguing for one side or the other, I am arguing against fundamentally changing MW:O from the BT universe into another generic mech-skinned shooter. That would kill this game.

So, how many? 500? 200? 50? 1? Where is the line drawn?

Could you please give one GAMEPLAY reason for not making IS engines closer to clan engines? One GAMEPLAY reason why its fine for Clans to continue with a massively better engine, now that they are getting fully customisable mechs?

The only reasons you are giving is 'People will leave the game if you make it less like TT' - which im translating in my head to 'ill leave the game if you take my sides undisputed advantage away'

The TT mechanic of C-XL dying on 2 ST loss compared to IS XL dying on 1 is counteracted in a couple of significant ways that we dont (and cant) have:

1) Random hit allocation in TT. You cannot simply focus down the ST intentionally.

2) Asymmetrical force sizes. More IS per side than Clan - doesnt work in a game where people control only a single mech, because people dont sign up to play cannon fodder.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 16 November 2015 - 03:52 AM.

[AbyssalTyrant]

I'm sure he would rather just throw vague threats then provide a logical reason .

[Hotthedd]

Widowmaker1981, on 16 November 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

Could you please give one GAMEPLAY reason for not making IS engines closer to clan engines? One GAMEPLAY reason why its fine for Clans to continue with a massively better engine, now that they are getting fully customisable mechs?

The only reasons you are giving is 'People will leave the game if you make it less like TT' - which im translating in my head to 'ill leave the game if you take my sides undisputed advantage away'

The TT mechanic of C-XL dying on 2 ST loss compared to IS XL dying on 1 is counteracted in a couple of significant ways that we dont (and cant) have:

1) Random hit allocation in TT. You cannot simply focus down the ST intentionally.

2) Asymmetrical force sizes. More IS per side than Clan - doesnt work in a game where people control only a single mech, because people dont sign up to play cannon fodder.

First of all, I am for making ISXL engines and cXL engines closer. Severe heat and movement penalties for losing a ST with a cXL engine does this, I believe.

You allege that my sole reason for being against the incredible ISXL buff is due to lore and TT rules. I suggest you read the entire thread. Gameplay wise, allowing an ISXL engine to survive despite the destruction of a ST (and its 3 crits), takes away the main reason to have to choose between standard and XL. In fact the ONLY reason to take a Std. engine would be to fit an AC/20 in the ST. Adding survivability buffs to the Std. engine to make it more attractive is the very definition of power creep.
This of course does not detract from my other assertion that moving away from BT has been a mistake that has led to player loss in nearly every other instance it has happened, and it would happen with this change as well.

And again, for the reading comprehension impaired: Clans are not "my side". I play both techs equally. (Actually I play IS 'mechs more) I am not arguing for any personal advantage, I care about the game, and staying true to the original intent.

The balancing mechanics in TT are not the only balancing factors PGI has to work with. To your point: Aiming in TT was harder to do (although possible) than in MW:O. This problem actually stems from the fact that it is WAY TO EASY to aim precisely with multiple weapons in MW:O. Fix THAT problem, and point 1 is solved.
Assymetrical balance of numbers will not happen in MW:O. That is unfortunate. However PGI is continually nerfing clan weapons, buffing IS weapons, and trying to balance the chassis with quirks. I guess we will have to live with that.

AbyssalTyrant, on 16 November 2015 - 04:33 AM, said:

I'm sure he would rather just throw vague threats then provide a logical reason .

I am sure you would rather spew your own ignorance that read the thread or contribute anything meaningful.

[Widowmaker1981]

Hotthedd, on 16 November 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

First of all, I am for making ISXL engines and cXL engines closer. Severe heat and movement penalties for losing a ST with a cXL engine does this, I believe.

You allege that my sole reason for being against the incredible ISXL buff is due to lore and TT rules. I suggest you read the entire thread. Gameplay wise, allowing an ISXL engine to survive despite the destruction of a ST (and its 3 crits), takes away the main reason to have to choose between standard and XL. In fact the ONLY reason to take a Std. engine would be to fit an AC/20 in the ST. Adding survivability buffs to the Std. engine to make it more attractive is the very definition of power creep.
This of course does not detract from my other assertion that moving away from BT has been a mistake that has led to player loss in nearly every other instance it has happened, and it would happen with this change as well.

And again, for the reading comprehension impaired: Clans are not "my side". I play both techs equally. (Actually I play IS 'mechs more) I am not arguing for any personal advantage, I care about the game, and staying true to the original intent.

The balancing mechanics in TT are not the only balancing factors PGI has to work with. To your point: Aiming in TT was harder to do (although possible) than in MW:O. This problem actually stems from the fact that it is WAY TO EASY to aim precisely with multiple weapons in MW:O. Fix THAT problem, and point 1 is solved.
Assymetrical balance of numbers will not happen in MW:O. That is unfortunate. However PGI is continually nerfing clan weapons, buffing IS weapons, and trying to balance the chassis with quirks. I guess we will have to live with that.



I am sure you would rather spew your own ignorance that read the thread or contribute anything meaningful.

The fact of the matter is that if you apply sufficiently harsh penalties for losing a ST in a clan mech such that it isnt blatantly OP compared to the IS XL, you simply kill stone dead every single Omnimech with large, easy to hit STs - including:
Dire Wolf, Warhawk, Timberwolf, Hellbringer, Maddog, Shadow Cat, Nova. All of those mechs become unplayable, because if they were IS mechs they would be considered XL deathtraps on the level of the Stalker. XL Deathtraps with fixed XLs..

Regarding buffing STD engines.. So what if its power creep? Its defensive power creep, i.e. increasing TTK, i.e. what everyone is asking for.