146 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 27 February 2016 - 04:31 AM, said:

But you don't really have to work that hard. Quirks pick up a lot of the slack and allow IS 'Mechs to take a lot more punishment than they really should.

Equality of durability is very important and this illustrates that we don't have that.

Yes, Clan doesn't die on XL ST loss, but they can take less punishment overall, as the most of them don't have those extra structure/armor points.

Those Quirks are detracting from the game by usurping a role they shouldn't have (balance) which prevents them from their right use (bringing out what's special/unique in a 'Mech).

Even the quirks are not enough to allow you to shrug off a hit taken during a lapse in effort. You take for granted just how much you have to keep moving to stay durable and attempting to spread damage is entirely futile against a little bit of trigger discipline.

Honestly, though, it sounds like the new heat system is going to change everything, since you won't be able to just alpha 50-60 points all day every day, so I'm going to with-hold any final judgements or opinions on the matter until that hits.

And honestly? I am one of the bigger balance nerds on here, but unlike some I am also interested in preventing the game from becoming a homogeneous snooze-fest. It's not an improvement if we have balance but everybody is still using the same thing as everybody else because everything behaves like everything else.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 27 February 2016 - 07:25 AM.

[Gyrok]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 February 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Even the quirks are not enough to allow you to shrug off a hit taken during a lapse in effort. You take for granted just how much you have to keep moving to stay durable and attempting to spread damage is entirely futile against a little bit of trigger discipline.

Honestly, though, it sounds like the new heat system is going to change everything, since you won't be able to just alpha 50-60 points all day every day, so I'm going to with-hold any final judgements or opinions on the matter until that hits.

And honestly? I am one of the bigger balance nerds on here, but unlike some I am also interested in preventing the game from becoming a homogeneous snooze-fest. It's not an improvement if we have balance but everybody is still using the same thing as everybody else because everything behaves like everything else.

TL;DR: Mirror balance is boring.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 February 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Even the quirks are not enough to allow you to shrug off a hit taken during a lapse in effort. You take for granted just how much you have to keep moving to stay durable and attempting to spread damage is entirely futile against a little bit of trigger discipline.

Honestly, though, it sounds like the new heat system is going to change everything, since you won't be able to just alpha 50-60 points all day every day, so I'm going to with-hold any final judgements or opinions on the matter until that hits.

And honestly? I am one of the bigger balance nerds on here, but unlike some I am also interested in preventing the game from becoming a homogeneous snooze-fest. It's not an improvement if we have balance but everybody is still using the same thing as everybody else because everything behaves like everything else.

I'm very much afraid of homogenization. This is the single point of similarity I will EVER champion in this game.

But I believe that making the foundational balance (almost) equal allows us to make other things more clearly differentiated.

Take Quirks, for example. How many IS 'Mechs have structure Quirks? Most; and many of those Quirks are the same or close values.

What's special about them? Nothing.

That's a kind of homogenization, and a highly pervasive one, too.

But what's to be done? As long as cXL is markedly better than isXL and Std., IS will need compensation.

Clan Battlemechs can just choose to run the better engine. IS 'Mechs can't, they have the choice of two inferior engines. When IS Omnimechs are introduced (as they surely will be) they won't even have that choice.

IS weapons can't simply be made better than Clan weapons, that's blatantly unfair.

So, we are stuck in the generic, and homogenizing, Quirk loop.

The only way to break the inevitable infinite Quirk cycles, and their pervasive sameness, is to level the foundational imbalance that caused their use as a balancing mechanism to begin with.

That means making isXL work like cXL, but with slightly worse penalties and buff Std. durability to drive the contrast.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 27 February 2016 - 10:43 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Like I said, I already understand all of that. And like I also said, I don't much care. And I'll add, I think you are blowing the effects out of proportion.

I am perfectly fine with isXL engines retaining death on ST and providing a structure boost to STs when equipped; it was working just fine when joined with IS weapons that weren't garbage, as shown by the top players of the game, and it's no more of a magic trick than changing the behavior for the engine. Besides, you are proposing the same concept with STD engines, which will never be as good as any XL simply because you cannot re-position effectively when using them; you boost the durability bonus on them too far and we just start going for legs instead. Or you can quirk the durability for the whole 'Mech, but that just further undermines the stance against using durability quirks to help the isXL, too.

No, I'm not convinced. You and McGral and Khobai are on a misguided crusade. Far worse than the XL difference is the fact that my Medium Laser has only 67% the range and 70% of the damage of a Clan ER Medium while using 100% of the slots and 100% of the tonnage. Or that my Large pulse has 61% of the range and 85% of the damage despite using 100% of the slots and 116% of the tonnage. Or that isDHS are no better than cDHS on the net but occupy 150% of the volume. Making the two XLs work the same doesn't fix any of that.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

Like I said, I already understand all of that. And like I also said, I don't much care.

Fair enough.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

And I'll add, I think you are blowing the effects out of proportion.

The durability may not be the end all of balance, but the point is that it's the foundation.

When the foundation is off kilter, there are far reaching consequences that range from survivability to Quirk usage to weapon balance.

I'm not trying to blow anything out of proportion; it's that this has farther reaching consequences than most realize.

That homogenization you don't want? Quirks are already pushing toward it.

Their root? Foundational imbalance following from unequal durability.

The entire IS techline has to be compensated for their engine choices being inferior.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

I am perfectly fine with isXL engines retaining death on ST and providing a structure boost to STs when equipped; it was working just fine when joined with IS weapons that weren't garbage, as shown by the top players of the game, and it's no more of a magic trick than changing the behavior for the engine. Besides, you are proposing the same concept with STD engines, which will never be as good as any XL simply because you cannot re-position effectively when using them; you boost the durability bonus on them too far and we just start going for legs instead. Or you can quirk the durability for the whole 'Mech, but that just further undermines the stance against using durability quirks to help the isXL, too.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm proposing the same concept with Std. engines.

I'm proposing making them viable alternative for both techlines instead of a poor choice for IS and a non-choice for Clans.

You could start shooting at legs. That's a viable targeting choice.

Note that most legs can carry more armor than an ST front (when you give even some armor to the back).

'Mechs running Std. engines may not want to shave leg armor any more to mitigate getting shot there. That would return you to targeting their CT, as coring that would still be easier than taking out both legs or 1 leg and the CT.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

No, I'm not convinced. You and McGral and Khobai are on a misguided crusade. Far worse than the XL difference is the fact that my Medium Laser has only 67% the range and 70% of the damage of a Clan ER Medium while using 100% of the slots and 100% of the tonnage. Or that my Large pulse has 61% of the range and 85% of the damage despite using 100% of the slots and 116% of the tonnage. Or that isDHS are no better than cDHS on the net but occupy 150% of the volume. Making the two XLs work the same doesn't fix any of that.

As I said, it's not the end all of balance, but it is the start.

The weapon discrepancies you note are also valid issues, no doubt about it.

If you're not convinced... well, ok.

My driving motivation for this is about Quirks. I so very much want them not to be the primary balancing mechanism; thus making them nothing but generic buffs. They are so much more interesting as really special accentuations of the 'Mech's uniqueness!

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 28 February 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

The durability may not be the end all of balance, but the point is that it's the foundation.

When the foundation is off kilter, there are far reaching consequences that range from survivability to Quirk usage to weapon balance.

I'm not trying to blow anything out of proportion; it's that this has farther reaching consequences than most realize.

That homogenization you don't want? Quirks are already pushing toward it.

Their root? Foundational imbalance following from unequal durability.

The entire IS techline has to be compensated for their engine choices being inferior.

It's not as much of a foundation as you think it is, it's just another piece of equipment in a whole set of equipment that has better packaging and benefits more than it should from that packaging advantage. The rules didn't even change, it's that cXL side-steps the rules by being smaller. But, that's not a core problem. The core problem is that there isn't an equitable trade-of and I submit to you that you can make an equitable trade-off without making the two all but identical.

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm proposing the same concept with Std. engines.

Any proposal that sees STD engines providing a durability buff to a 'Mech equipping them is using quirks to fix what is an inherently inferior choice. By mere suggestion that this route is a valid option, you make me question why it's not also okay that we do the same for isXL. It was, as a point of fact, working to bring balance. Why can we not take that 'Mech structure quirk, and distill it into a scalar value applied to the XL itself? Why is that unacceptable when that's more or less what the "normalize XLs" crowd (for the record, that's a misappropriation of the term "normalize") are proposing we do to make STDs useful?

Quote

I'm proposing making them viable alternative for both techlines instead of a poor choice for IS and a non-choice for Clans.

And I'm saying you can't, because you will always be having to choose from one and a half of the following when using them: speed, firepower, cooling.

I should not have to explain how massive a force-multiplier that speed and cooling are, and firepower should be self-evident: within a fixed cooling profile more is better and more range is better. You would have to apply ludicrous amounts of durability or moderate durability and an substantial cooling bonus to change this reality because speed is king.

Quote

You could start shooting at legs. That's a viable targeting choice.

Note that most legs can carry more armor than an ST front (when you give even some armor to the back).

'Mechs running Std. engines may not want to shave leg armor any more to mitigate getting shot there. That would return you to targeting their CT, as coring that would still be easier than taking out both legs or 1 leg and the CT.

Also note that the only thing really stopping 'Mechs from dying in four seconds to focus fire is motion, and a legged 'Mech has insufficient motion to survive. We only have to take one leg from one of your team mates and then we relocate and create a situation that compels you to either abandon your team mate or lose the match.

If you've brought STD engines and decent firepower, you are moving too slowly to escape a brawl rush and legs are already the primary target during brawls.

So, I think the nature of the game still favors my analysis. But, that could change with the new heat system. We'll see.

Quote

As I said, it's not the end all of balance, but it is the start.

It is not the start. It is a start, and not one I like or agree is the best option.

Quote

The weapon discrepancies you note are also valid issues, no doubt about it.

If you're not convinced... well, ok.

My driving motivation for this is about Quirks. I so very much want them not to be the primary balancing mechanism; thus making them nothing but generic buffs. They are so much more interesting as really special accentuations of the 'Mech's uniqueness!

I also think quirks need to go away as a balancing mechanism. Weapon behavior profiles need to be tweaked directly, durability buffs can be linked to the engine types directly as scalar values to modify the existing structure, etc. Quirks should be used to either mitigate geometry failings (i.e. the hunch on the Hunchback) or provide character (i.e. extra dartiness on the Locust).

But realize that what you and I are both proposing is merely shunting the "generic" quirks to the equipment rather than the 'Mech itself.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

It's not as much of a foundation as you think it is, it's just another piece of equipment in a whole set of equipment that has better packaging and benefits more than it should from that packaging advantage. The rules didn't even change, it's that cXL side-steps the rules by being smaller. But, that's not a core problem. The core problem is that there isn't an equitable trade-of and I submit to you that you can make an equitable trade-off without making the two all but identical.

If durability and survivability is not the foundation of balance, what is? The engine is the single most important determiner of a 'Mech's durability and survivability.

But the rules did change (from classic TT). In TT it's conceivable that a 'Mech, be it IS or Clan, might die without ever having a single torso section destroyed; they would only need to lose 1 engine crit in each torso section. In MWO, such a possibility does not exist.

That's fine (I don't propose to revert to TT rules in any way/shape/form), but it also means that we should reevaluate how engines (and therefore 'Mechs) are destroyed.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

Any proposal that sees STD engines providing a durability buff to a 'Mech equipping them is using quirks to fix what is an inherently inferior choice. By mere suggestion that this route is a valid option, you make me question why it's not also okay that we do the same for isXL. It was, as a point of fact, working to bring balance. Why can we not take that 'Mech structure quirk, and distill it into a scalar value applied to the XL itself? Why is that unacceptable when that's more or less what the "normalize XLs" crowd (for the record, that's a misappropriation of the term "normalize") are proposing we do to make STDs useful?

I recognize the similarity of durability buffs to Std. engines to durability Quirks. The difference is in the definition, I suppose.

Quirks (capital 'Q') as we have them are not quirks (small 'q'), at all. They are simply generic buffs by another name. This is because a "quirk" is "a peculiar behavioral habit:". If almost every 'Mech has them, they aren't peculiar at all, they are common.

Std. engines should have a generic buff similar to what "Quirks" are now, and Quirks should be returned to their right usage according to their definition: that is, something peculiar to each particular 'Mech.

I'm not trying to use semantics to prove my argument. I'm trying to show a meaningful difference in function.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

And I'm saying you can't, because you will always be having to choose from one and a half of the following when using them: speed, firepower, cooling.

This list neglects durability. Durability is worth something; the fact that 'Mech durability scales up with weight is proof of that.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

I should not have to explain how massive a force-multiplier that speed and cooling are, and firepower should be self-evident: within a fixed cooling profile more is better and more range is better. You would have to apply ludicrous amounts of durability or moderate durability and an substantial cooling bonus to change this reality because speed is king.

Also note that the only thing really stopping 'Mechs from dying in four seconds to focus fire is motion, and a legged 'Mech has insufficient motion to survive. We only have to take one leg from one of your team mates and then we relocate and create a situation that compels you to either abandon your team mate or lose the match.

If you've brought STD engines and decent firepower, you are moving too slowly to escape a brawl rush and legs are already the primary target during brawls.

I disagree because this ignores that some 'Mechs are already slow. Not every 'Mech relies on speed.

Within the proposed model certain 'Mechs would absolutely still favor XL (lights) and that other would surely prefer to increase their (already significant) durability (assaults).

Most assaults (and even some heavies) can't increase their speed enough through tonnage investment to really get away from a fight, despite whether they bring an XL/Std.. Increasing tonnage in the engine for heavier 'Mechs has progressively diminishing returns.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

....

It is not the start. It is a start, and not one I like or agree is the best option.

The reason I consider it the start of balance is that the engine is the foundation of durability, of tonnage available, of speed and of critical space. From those it extends less directly to affect cooling, armor and weapons loadouts.

It is the core, the beating heart of the 'Mech.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

I also think quirks need to go away as a balancing mechanism. Weapon behavior profiles need to be tweaked directly, durability buffs can be linked to the engine types directly as scalar values to modify the existing structure, etc. Quirks should be used to either mitigate geometry failings (i.e. the hunch on the Hunchback) or provide character (i.e. extra dartiness on the Locust).

I'm not sure these idea are really in contradiction to the proposed change. The weapon values being tweaked is surely not.

Could you explain what you mean by "durability buffs can be linked to the engine types directly as scalar values to modify the existing structure"?

Do you mean, bigger engines get more durability?

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

But realize that what you and I are both proposing is merely shunting the "generic" quirks to the equipment rather than the 'Mech itself.

Just as a follow up to my above about clarity in terminology (again, not meant to play at semantics): I really hate the mislabel of Quirks. If they're not "peculiar" to the particular in question, they're not quirks at all.

So, what I want is Quirks to be quirks and generic buffs to be simply buffs.

But, yes; I want the generic buffs to be connected to the equipment. I want Quirks to be connected to the 'Mechs. (Much as you described above.)

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 28 February 2016 - 03:55 AM, said:

If durability and survivability is not the foundation of balance, what is? The engine is the single most important determiner of a 'Mech's durability and survivability.

But the rules did change (from classic TT). In TT it's conceivable that a 'Mech, be it IS or Clan, might die without ever having a single torso section destroyed; they would only need to lose 1 engine crit in each torso section. In MWO, such a possibility does not exist.

That's fine (I don't propose to revert to TT rules in any way/shape/form), but it also means that we should reevaluate how engines (and therefore 'Mechs) are destroyed.

By rules, I mean the rules in this game. They are applied equally to all engines: three slots lost is death, even if it's just a thought on paper it's represented by the fact that the ST = death flag is checked on engines with three slots in the ST, so on and so forth. I suppose it's more accurate to say that if a 'Mech keels over, it has lost at least three engine slots rather than it keels over because it lost at least three slots, but you can't tell a difference in the game.

For the record, I have less than zero love for the TT game rules and the lore. That is to say, I harbor animosity toward them because they are ill-conceived and poorly written and because too many people think they should carry over near exactly into a game like MWO. To those people I say no, they should not. Period.

Quote

I recognize the similarity of durability buffs to Std. engines to durability Quirks. The difference is in the definition, I suppose.

Quirks (capital 'Q') as we have them are not quirks (small 'q'), at all. They are simply generic buffs by another name. This is because a "quirk" is "a peculiar behavioral habit:". If almost every 'Mech has them, they aren't peculiar at all, they are common.

Std. engines should have a generic buff similar to what "Quirks" are now, and Quirks should be returned to their right usage according to their definition: that is, something peculiar to each particular 'Mech.

I'm not trying to use semantics to prove my argument. I'm trying to show a meaningful difference in function.

Okay, I get the difference between quirk and Quirk, but that doesn't change that you are still effectively proposing that we move the common baseline durabilty Quirk from the 'Mech to the engine and saying that is a valid methodology for making that engine not an inferior choice.

Before jumping on to repeat the obvious question, is your stance that if an isXL behaved as a cXL, that it would not require any further tweaks and that a durability buffed STD would be a valid alternative because it's making an equitable trade?

If yes, how does making the isXL grant a durability buff to STs instead of not die on ST-loss, which we have already seen demonstrated as a workable option in real game-play, harm a buffed STD engine any more than making the two XLs the same? I am failing entirely to see the difference. If an ST-buffed isXL is at the same power-level as an untouched cXL, and a buffed STD can be made as an equitable alternative to the latter, it should follow that it's an equitable alternative to the former, too.

Quote

This list neglects durability. Durability is worth something; the fact that 'Mech durability scales up with weight is proof of that.

I'm neglecting it because high end play will always maximize the useful durability. I'm neglecting it because the amount of bonus you have to apply to a STD to overcome the disadvantages of speed deficiencies is so high that (and this is now opinion territory) I can't condone making such a change, especially when the result is likely to be a shift to a high DPS brawl meta where nobody goes for torsos anyway, rendering the buff completely moot. Might as well bring the XL, anyway, and cram more guns/ammo/heatsinks in.

Quote

I disagree because this ignores that some 'Mechs are already slow. Not every 'Mech relies on speed.

That's a function of PGI's arbitrary engine limitations. They pulled this stupid equation out of thin air to limit certain chassis-variants for flavor and it's been haunting us ever since (RIP CTF-4X). Those 'Mechs that are slow, are slow because they don't have choice. Can't cram an XL385 in a Stalker (that would actually be pretty terrifying), so you might as well pick the largest under-sized STD engine and make the best of it.

Quote

Within the proposed model certain 'Mechs would absolutely still favor XL (lights) and that other would surely prefer to increase their (already significant) durability (assaults).

Most assaults (and even some heavies) can't increase their speed enough through tonnage investment to really get away from a fight, despite whether they bring an XL/Std.. Increasing tonnage in the engine for heavier 'Mechs has progressively diminishing returns.

See above. Also see statement about STDs not ever going to be a truly superior option. The Battlemaster has supplanted the Stalker (which I find hilarious because everybody told me it was bad even after quirks and, well, look at them now),

Quote

The reason I consider it the start of balance is that the engine is the foundation of durability, of tonnage available, of speed and of critical space. From those it extends less directly to affect cooling, armor and weapons loadouts.

It is the core, the beating heart of the 'Mech.

The engine itself is not the foundation of durability or tonnage available, the chassis is. The engine always takes up the same amount of resources for a given size and type, but the relative consumption and relative benefits depend on the 'Mech itself. If I have mostly torso weapons, I have less room to work in my STs. If I have mostly arm weapons, I have less tonnage to play with since I can't strip those arms. If I have lower actuators, I have less room to work with in those arms. If the 'Mech has high-mounted points, I get more tonnage to play with since I can remove some armor from the legs. You get the picture.

Although I usually condemn the practice of using popular consensus as a support mechanism for my arguments, most acknowledge that heavier 'Mechs in a weight class trend toward being better than their lighter siblings, for better or worse. That's because they get more weight to work with. For a given speed, you can bring more guns and/or more armor than a lighter version. The heart of the balance problem between IS and Clan is therefore not the engine, it's the fact that what the Clans get with their available tonnage is simply better, with no equitable trade, than the IS equipment. That includes the cXL, but the disparity between the cXL and isXL is no different in nature than the disparity between a cLPL and an isLPL on two un-Quirked 'Mechs, and is in fact being solved through the use of such Quirks rather effectively on certain chassis. If we remove those Quirks and place their benefits into the equipment itself such that cLPL and isLPL are equitably valuable weapons, we've solved the core dilemma. All that remain now are 'Mechs with geometry or severe hard-point shortcomings that need direct intervention.

Quote

I'm not sure these idea are really in contradiction to the proposed change. The weapon values being tweaked is surely not.

They aren't contradiction, they are agreement. I'm trying to show that you and I are of generally like-mind, I just prefer the less direct and obvious path because that way is a snore. IS are specialists, Clans are generalists. Measure your risk and reward and play accordingly.

Quote

Could you explain what you mean by "durability buffs can be linked to the engine types directly as scalar values to modify the existing structure"?

Do you mean, bigger engines get more durability?

I mean that the engine could say something like "+25% structure (LT/RT)" or even "+10% armor (LT/RT), + 15% structure (LT/RT)" and that's how much of a buff it provides as a common base to any 'Mech it's equipped in. Though you do bring up an interesting point, it might be necessary to have it scale inversely with size so slower 'Mechs are less gimped than faster 'Mechs...but that ultimately returns me to the thought where the necessary buff would be so high on the low end that it would just result in a meta-game shift because it's the exact problem we run into trying to buff inherently slower STD builds. Those STDs are either out-poked by constantly shifting long-range builds or out-brawled by 'Mechs going for legs. With a lower engine size, you run into slot-locking problems which cannot be aided without increasing the benefit-per-heat on IS weapons.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 28 February 2016 - 09:41 AM.

[Jackal Noble]

Fine, say IS xls get to survive a st loss at a reduced speed, would it then be fair to allow clan xls to retain their full speed ,turning etc as before?

Edited by JackalBeast, 28 February 2016 - 09:55 AM.

[Mcgral18]

JackalBeast, on 28 February 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Fine, say IS xls get to survive a st loss at a reduced speed, would it then be fair to allow clan xls to retain their full speed ,turning etc as before?

No, because the cXL is still outright better in that it takes fewer Crit slots.

[Y E O N N E]

JackalBeast, on 28 February 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Fine, say IS xls get to survive a st loss at a reduced speed, would it then be fair to allow clan xls to retain their full speed ,turning etc as before?

No, because that's just shifting the goal posts. Let's say right now the cXL is at 80% effectiveness and the isXL is 60%. All you would be doing there is making the cXL 100% after we finally bring the isXL to 80%, which defeats the entire point of the buff.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

By rules, I mean the rules in this game. They are applied equally to all engines: three slots lost is death, even if it's just a thought on paper it's represented by the fact that the ST = death flag is checked on engines with three slots in the ST, so on and so forth. I suppose it's more accurate to say that if a 'Mech keels over, it has lost at least three engine slots rather than it keels over because it lost at least three slots, but you can't tell a difference in the game.

The thing is that even if this is the theory behind destruction on ST loss (losing 3 engine crits), it doesn't really represent the reality.

That's because certain scenarios that are possible in a crit-by-crit destruction based system are not possible in a torso section destruction model.

Consider my above example again: Even a Clan 'Mech could be destroyed without every having an ST/CT destroyed by losing 3 engine crits, 1 in each section. Further, if a Clan 'Mech lost an ST, that 'Mech would only need to lose 1 engine crit in either the CT or remaining ST.

It may be that MWO ST loss is meant to reflect that, but it doesn't actually effect it and its actually an entirely different dynamic.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

For the record, I have less than zero love for the TT game rules and the lore. That is to say, I harbor animosity toward them because they are ill-conceived and poorly written and because too many people think they should carry over near exactly into a game like MWO. To those people I say no, they should not. Period.

Hallelujah!

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Okay, I get the difference between quirk and Quirk, but that doesn't change that you are still effectively proposing that we move the common baseline durabilty Quirk from the 'Mech to the engine and saying that is a valid methodology for making that engine not an inferior choice.

I am.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Before jumping on to repeat the obvious question, is your stance that if an isXL behaved as a cXL, that it would not require any further tweaks and that a durability buffed STD would be a valid alternative because it's making an equitable trade?

Essentially, yes. But, I cannot promise it wouldn't need further tweaks.

I propose that the only change to isXL is that it not die on ST loss, rather suffers a loss of speed and mobility; similar to that which cXL has currently. I do not propose to give isXL any structure-based durability buff.

Concurrently, I propose to give Std. engines a moderate structure-based durability buff to CT; similar to that which IS 'Mechs receive now, value or percentage based, TBD.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

If yes, how does making the isXL grant a durability buff to STs instead of not die on ST-loss, which we have already seen demonstrated as a workable option in real game-play, harm a buffed STD engine any more than making the two XLs the same? I am failing entirely to see the difference. If an ST-buffed isXL is at the same power-level as an untouched cXL, and a buffed STD can be made as an equitable alternative to the latter, it should follow that it's an equitable alternative to the former, too.

For one, it requires the (ab)use of "Quirks" to add those structure buffs and artificially boost IS durability, and it does so in a completely arbitrary way (this 'Mech gets +X structure, that 'Mech gets +Y structure). So a large part of my argument is around the use of arbitrary values and lack of system-based approach.

For a second, that cXL is so vastly superior to Std. engine means that there are no meaningful choices for Clans. Improving isXL to the cXL level allows for the improving of Std. engines to viable choice level; thus making it a meaningful choice for the player. What's more, it does so without risk of "power creep", as the standard of "power" (cXL) doesn't change at all. So, yes it should be a viable alternative to either cXL or isXL.

For a third, giving isXL the same function as cXL puts them at (relative parity). But after the initial change, this is a largely invisible durability and is still relative fragility when compared to Std. engine. Giving Std. engines visible structure buffs as opposed to XLs apparent fragility creates a greater contrast between the engine choices.

As you can see, the motivation for this change (at least from me) is that of creating meaningful choices and creating a system-based balance as much as it is for balancing the techlines.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

I'm neglecting it because high end play will always maximize the useful durability. I'm neglecting it because the amount of bonus you have to apply to a STD to overcome the disadvantages of speed deficiencies is so high that (and this is now opinion territory) I can't condone making such a change, especially when the result is likely to be a shift to a high DPS brawl meta where nobody goes for torsos anyway, rendering the buff completely moot. Might as well bring the XL, anyway, and cram more guns/ammo/heatsinks in.

Ok. I'm of a different opinion, here.

Considering that there are a number of 'Mechs that do and will continue to effectively use Std. engines, I believe that tying the durability buff to Std. engine is a way to create more meaningful choices.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

That's a function of PGI's arbitrary engine limitations. They pulled this stupid equation out of thin air to limit certain chassis-variants for flavor and it's been haunting us ever since (RIP CTF-4X). Those 'Mechs that are slow, are slow because they don't have choice. Can't cram an XL385 in a Stalker (that would actually be pretty terrifying), so you might as well pick the largest under-sized STD engine and make the best of it.

Probably true. But, I'm just working in the game we have!

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

....

The engine itself is not the foundation of durability or tonnage available, the chassis is. The engine always takes up the same amount of resources for a given size and type, but the relative consumption and relative benefits depend on the 'Mech itself. If I have mostly torso weapons, I have less room to work in my STs. If I have mostly arm weapons, I have less tonnage to play with since I can't strip those arms. If I have lower actuators, I have less room to work with in those arms. If the 'Mech has high-mounted points, I get more tonnage to play with since I can remove some armor from the legs. You get the picture.

I get you and concede your point; the chassis is more basic than the engine.

That said, inside of a chassis there is no piece of equipment more important than the engine. (That's really what I meant before anyway.)

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Although I usually condemn the practice of using popular consensus as a support mechanism for my arguments, most acknowledge that heavier 'Mechs in a weight class trend toward being better than their lighter siblings, for better or worse. That's because they get more weight to work with. For a given speed, you can bring more guns and/or more armor than a lighter version. The heart of the balance problem between IS and Clan is therefore not the engine, it's the fact that what the Clans get with their available tonnage is simply better, with no equitable trade, than the IS equipment. That includes the cXL, but the disparity between the cXL and isXL is no different in nature than the disparity between a cLPL and an isLPL on two un-Quirked 'Mechs, and is in fact being solved through the use of such Quirks rather effectively on certain chassis. If we remove those Quirks and place their benefits into the equipment itself such that cLPL and isLPL are equitably valuable weapons, we've solved the core dilemma. All that remain now are 'Mechs with geometry or severe hard-point shortcomings that need direct intervention.

This illustrates other (ab)uses of Quirks and further balance problems.

One thing about weapons is that we can approach it from a different angle.

That is, we could transfer the "Quirk" benefit to the core weapon; but that might make the contrast between techlines less important. On the other hand, we can look at ratios and derived values to make weapons in different techlines equal in those derived values and still make the base values (very) different.

I prefer the latter approach because I fear homogenization.

But that's a different discussion.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

They aren't contradiction, they are agreement. I'm trying to show that you and I are of generally like-mind, I just prefer the less direct and obvious path because that way is a snore. IS are specialists, Clans are generalists. Measure your risk and reward and play accordingly.

Yeonne Greene, on 28 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

I mean that the engine could say something like "+25% structure (LT/RT)" or even "+10% armor (LT/RT), + 15% structure (LT/RT)" and that's how much of a buff it provides as a common base to any 'Mech it's equipped in. Though you do bring up an interesting point, it might be necessary to have it scale inversely with size so slower 'Mechs are less gimped than faster 'Mechs...but that ultimately returns me to the thought where the necessary buff would be so high on the low end that it would just result in a meta-game shift because it's the exact problem we run into trying to buff inherently slower STD builds. Those STDs are either out-poked by constantly shifting long-range builds or out-brawled by 'Mechs going for legs. With a lower engine size, you run into slot-locking problems which cannot be aided without increasing the benefit-per-heat on IS weapons.

A percentage increase (for Std engines CT only in the proposed model) is what I was thinking as well. That seems to most fairly reflect the various roles of the 'Mechs ranging from light (fast and fragile) to assault (slow and durable).

The part about your concern for lighter 'Mechs not being able to benefit from the Std. engine durability, is not really a problem. First, lighter 'Mechs will always gravitate toward XL for the reason that they don't have much tonnage to begin with. Second, lighter 'Mechs are inherently more fragile and meant to be that way; the availability of a more durable Std. engine isn't meant to change that fact.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Cranial Enigma, on 25 February 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

Sadly that won't ever happen. You are better off praying to PGI to implement Light Fusion engines into the game for IS. And on that note, when was the last time we got new tech/weapons into the game? So yeah, don't get your hopes up too much.

On that note, we have ZERO real defensive equipment, too. (ECM is broken due to a bad radar system, and flamers only recently have been made usable.)

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 28 February 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Essentially, yes. But, I cannot promise it wouldn't need further tweaks.

I propose that the only change to isXL is that it not die on ST loss, rather suffers a loss of speed and mobility; similar to that which cXL has currently. I do not propose to give isXL any structure-based durability buff.

Concurrently, I propose to give Std. engines a moderate structure-based durability buff to CT; similar to that which IS 'Mechs receive now, value or percentage based, TBD.



For one, it requires the (ab)use of "Quirks" to add those structure buffs and artificially boost IS durability, and it does so in a completely arbitrary way (this 'Mech gets +X structure, that 'Mech gets +Y structure). So a large part of my argument is around the use of arbitrary values and lack of system-based approach.

But doing the same for a STD engine isn't both arbitrary and an abuse of "Quirks"? Help me out here, it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too, on this point. If we're breaking the rule, one which we made up entirely on our own, for one engine type, I don't see how it's so horrible that we break it again for the other engine. If isXLs offer +X% buff to STs while STDs offer +Y% buff to CT and +Z% buff to STs (yes, the STD needs to buff STs since slow 'Mechs can't spread as well), I see it as the same system, how IS engines balance themselves. It's not a patchwork of 'Mech-specific buffs like we have now, and thus is no more or less arbitrary than deciding, out of the blue, that the isXL should behave like a cXL (and it will still be worse because it is bigger like all other IS equipment).

For Clans, cXL don't buff hit-points, they just survive an entire extra hit. If TTK and overall utility is the same versus the isXL and the STD, I don't see a problem.

Quote

For a second, that cXL is so vastly superior to Std. engine means that there are no meaningful choices for Clans. Improving isXL to the cXL level allows for the improving of Std. engines to viable choice level; thus making it a meaningful choice for the player. What's more, it does so without risk of "power creep", as the standard of "power" (cXL) doesn't change at all. So, yes it should be a viable alternative to either cXL or isXL.

None of this conflicts with making isXL grant an ST buff instead of making them cXLs, either. The goal is to make an isXL as much of a non-risk as a cXL, which buffing STs has already proven to do, the rest just falls into place.

Quote

For a third, giving isXL the same function as cXL puts them at (relative parity).

So does letting isXL buff STs.

Quote

But after the initial change, this is a largely invisible durability and is still relative fragility when compared to Std. engine. Giving Std. engines visible structure buffs as opposed to XLs apparent fragility creates a greater contrast between the engine choices.

Buffing STs but retaining death-on-ST-loss is still retaining relative XL-fragility. I mean, it explodes when losing any one of three places as opposed to only one or any two, so that's a point of fact, not opinion. It's just a different flavor of relative fragility, which is sort of the entire point in having two different tech bases.

Quote

As you can see, the motivation for this change (at least from me) is that of creating meaningful choices and creating a system-based balance as much as it is for balancing the techlines.

I am a systems engineer by degree and trade. A systemic approach to balance is what I have been seeking since I first started posting about balance at all. What "systemic" does not mean, though, is that everything is obtained through the same avenue. All it means is that we have a method for quantifying our end goal and all the variables that affect it. It means we have a model for performance and can make educated guesses about how each variable change will affect the output.

I mean, even 'Mech-specific buffs and such can be systemic. Clunky and inelegant, sure, but still systemic. The biggest issue right now, though, is that PGI is not following a systemic approach or, if they are, it's under a flawed model.

Quote

Ok. I'm of a different opinion, here.

Considering that there are a number of 'Mechs that do and will continue to effectively use Std. engines, I believe that tying the durability buff to Std. engine is a way to create more meaningful choices.

Only those 'Mechs that are so heavy that they have plenty of room to work with after mounting a STD and that can't go fast even with an XL. So that's Atlas, Mauler, Stalker... But that's not a hard-fast trend; Banshee can't go fast but is almost always found with an XL. Battlemaster sometimes has a STD, but that's basically a waste of a chassis since that turns it into a human-shaped Stalker.

Quote

I get you and concede your point; the chassis is more basic than the engine.

That said, inside of a chassis there is no piece of equipment more important than the engine. (That's really what I meant before anyway.)

I would say that is mostly true, yes, but with the caveat that there's no point in having a particular engine if it saps from other mission-critical functions, i.e. I wouldn't bring a STD if it means I take 10 days to get where my team needs me to respond to the enemy and, at the same time, have only 75% of the firepower I could have had if I had brought an XL.

So the engine is important, but the nature of the game pretty much dictates which one you have to bring to max out your utility. So, essentially, that means it comes back to chassis itself: what are my hard-points and how many tons do I have for stuff after I place that mandatory engine.

Quote

A percentage increase (for Std engines CT only in the proposed model) is what I was thinking as well. That seems to most fairly reflect the various roles of the 'Mechs ranging from light (fast and fragile) to assault (slow and durable).

See previous curiosity about why this approach is okay for a STD engine but not an isXL. It's...inconsistent.

Quote

The part about your concern for lighter 'Mechs not being able to benefit from the Std. engine durability, is not really a problem. First, lighter 'Mechs will always gravitate toward XL for the reason that they don't have much tonnage to begin with. Second, lighter 'Mechs are inherently more fragile and meant to be that way; the availability of a more durable Std. engine isn't meant to change that fact.

Note I said slower, not lighter.

The nature of scalars means that a lighter 'Mech will receive less bonus than a heavier 'Mech since its base structure value is small. Nothing is going to change the fragile nature of Lights.

Second, the point is that a slower 'Mech cannot spread its damage around as well as a faster 'Mech, and cannot escape danger. That means it needs more raw durability points to compensate. Ergo, the smaller an engine I place into a 'Mech, be it STD or isXL, the more durability it needs to remain dangerous given a fixed weapons load. Even if we say the weapons should be more dangerous when one sacrifices engine, never are they that much more dangerous that it's worth being so immobile. Not even a DWF is worth that.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

But doing the same for a STD engine isn't both arbitrary and an abuse of "Quirks"? Help me out here, it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too, on this point. If we're breaking the rule, one which we made up entirely on our own, for one engine type, I don't see how it's so horrible that we break it again for the other engine. If isXLs offer +X% buff to STs while STDs offer +Y% buff to CT and +Z% buff to STs (yes, the STD needs to buff STs since slow 'Mechs can't spread as well), I see it as the same system, how IS engines balance themselves. It's not a patchwork of 'Mech-specific buffs like we have now, and thus is no more or less arbitrary than deciding, out of the blue, that the isXL should behave like a cXL (and it will still be worse because it is bigger like all other IS equipment).

For Clans, cXL don't buff hit-points, they just survive an entire extra hit. If TTK and overall utility is the same versus the isXL and the STD, I don't see a problem.

I see what you are suggesting.

You could buff all torso sections to different levels; one percentage for isXL and one for Std. You could then leave "ST loss = death" alone.

It would be no more arbitrary than what I am suggesting. What it would be is continuing a system that continues the two-way imbalance we have now and does not solve the question "How much extra durability should isXL get to be equal to cXL?" That's the question we have now, just centered around Quirks.

There's no good answer to that question because it become completely subjective. Thus, it is no different than the conundrum of Quirks now.

Causing them to function the same way precludes that line of questioning.

"Wait! Then how much extra durability do Std. engines need to be equal to XL engines?" you might ask. The answer is: As much as it takes, start low and increase until there is general consensus that Std. is viable."

The beauty of the two engines working different is that comparisons upon function are invalid and so we don't need to answer the question directly the way we do when comparing isX and cXL.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

None of this conflicts with making isXL grant an ST buff instead of making them cXLs, either. The goal is to make an isXL as much of a non-risk as a cXL, which buffing STs has already proven to do, the rest just falls into place.

See above.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

....

Buffing STs but retaining death-on-ST-loss is still retaining relative XL-fragility. I mean, it explodes when losing any one of three places as opposed to only one or any two, so that's a point of fact, not opinion. It's just a different flavor of relative fragility, which is sort of the entire point in having two different tech bases.

True, it does retain relative fragility.

This then become a question of which method has greater benefits.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

.... A systemic approach to balance is what I have been seeking since I first started posting about balance at all. What "systemic" does not mean, though, is that everything is obtained through the same avenue. All it means is that we have a method for quantifying our end goal and all the variables that affect it. It means we have a model for performance and can make educated guesses about how each variable change will affect the output.

I mean, even 'Mech-specific buffs and such can be systemic. Clunky and inelegant, sure, but still systemic. The biggest issue right now, though, is that PGI is not following a systemic approach or, if they are, it's under a flawed model.

Quirks, as we have them, are attempting to provide balance; but failing to do so effectively. There could even be a system we don't see, but I'm sure it's more than inelegant; there's something wrong with it.

However, I don't believe they can make a Quirks system that would not be flawed in some way. It tries to create a compensatory value ex-post facto of function.

Much better make the value ex-ante to set up the system to cause the function and result we want to see.

So my logic follows that when looking for the best (that is most effective and simplest) solution, changing engines to be more equal (in the case of XLs) or more disparate (in the case of XL to Std comparisons) is that solution.

What are the better options? The Quirks method we have now? General buffs to IS weapons?

I ask you: What model is simpler, more effective and fairer?

Even linking the buffs Quirks both isXL and Std. instead of the chassis (which is what you mentioned above, I think) isn't near equal to this is creating that simplicity, effectiveness and contrast.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

Only those 'Mechs that are so heavy that they have plenty of room to work with after mounting a STD and that can't go fast even with an XL. So that's Atlas, Mauler, Stalker... But that's not a hard-fast trend; Banshee can't go fast but is almost always found with an XL. Battlemaster sometimes has a STD, but that's basically a waste of a chassis since that turns it into a human-shaped Stalker.

I don't see this as a problem because those are the same 'Mechs that are going to prefer durability over speed.

And that's exactly what you'd get with an Std. engine. On the other hand, XL would still be a viable choice.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

I would say that is mostly true, yes, but with the caveat that there's no point in having a particular engine if it saps from other mission-critical functions, i.e. I wouldn't bring a STD if it means I take 10 days to get where my team needs me to respond to the enemy and, at the same time, have only 75% of the firepower I could have had if I had brought an XL.

So the engine is important, but the nature of the game pretty much dictates which one you have to bring to max out your utility. So, essentially, that means it comes back to chassis itself: what are my hard-points and how many tons do I have for stuff after I place that mandatory engine.

Now we're getting into builds. I'm not about to try to enforce builds.

My only aim here is to create balance, contrast and meaningful choice for both techlines in the simplest and most effective method possible.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

See previous curiosity about why this approach is okay for a STD engine but not an isXL. It's...inconsistent.

Percentage's wouldn't be inconsistent, they would simply applies only to 1 type of engine. It applies to every particular engine of that type the same way

In contrast, XL would function a different way, but all XLs (despite techline) would be internally consistent.

That's part of the point, to make the distinction about the engine, not the techline.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 29 February 2016 - 11:53 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 29 February 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

I see what you are suggesting.

You could buff all torso sections to different levels; one percentage for isXL and one for Std. You could then leave "ST loss = death" alone.

It would be no more arbitrary than what I am suggesting. What it would be is continuing a system that continues the two-way imbalance we have now and does not solve the question "How much extra durability should isXL get to be equal to cXL?" That's the question we have now, just centered around Quirks.

There's no good answer to that question because it become completely subjective. Thus, it is no different than the conundrum of Quirks now.

Causing them to function the same way precludes that line of questioning.

"Wait! Then how much extra durability do Std. engines need to be equal to XL engines?" you might ask. The answer is: As much as it takes, start low and increase until there is general consensus that Std. is viable."

The beauty of the two engines working different is that comparisons upon function are invalid and so we don't need to answer the question directly the way we do when comparing isX and cXL.

We're continuing the subjective Quirk-inspired system anyway with the proposed STD tweaks. You are already going to have people asking the question of "how much is enough?" and there still won't be a good answer to that question.

If we're going to stay in uncertain and inelegant territory, you might as well just do it my way since retaining isXL death has the added benefit of keeping the game that much spicier.

Quote

True, it does retain relative fragility.

This then become a question of which method has greater benefits.

The goal is to balance it so neither has greater benefits.

Quote

Quirks, as we have them, are attempting to provide balance; but failing to do so effectively. There could even be a system we don't see, but I'm sure it's more than inelegant; there's something wrong with it.

However, I don't believe they can make a Quirks system that would not be flawed in some way. It tries to create a compensatory value ex-post facto of function.

Much better make the value ex-ante to set up the system to cause the function and result we want to see.

So my logic follows that when looking for the best (that is most effective and simplest) solution, changing engines to be more equal (in the case of XLs) or more disparate (in the case of XL to Std comparisons) is that solution.

What are the better options? The Quirks method we have now? General buffs to IS weapons?

I ask you: What model is simpler, more effective and fairer?

Even linking the buffs Quirks both isXL and Std. instead of the chassis (which is what you mentioned above, I think) isn't near equal to this is creating that simplicity, effectiveness and contrast.

For starters, I am not supporting the whole of the haphazard quirk system we have. The only thing I am debating here is that isXL need to be identical to cXL in function, and continue to submit that they need not.

That out of the way, yes, doing what you say would seemingly fix the XL problem, but that's taking the Teutonic approach which, since this is the game, is not necessarily the most desirable approach. I do not like Audis. I do not like [most] BMWs. I do not like Porsche. They are too clean at what they do. Not enough flaws to give them personality. Even the new Corvettes are too good. I bought a 1990 ZR-1 when I knew a 2002 Z06 (or even a 2000 996 Porsche) was the superior car for the money, precisely because the former has more character by leaps and bounds with its unique engine, single-year styling, '80s firm suspension, and total lack of traction control. I bought it involve me in the drive and entertain, not to put me to sleep with a super compliant ride that gets me from point A to B or to a phenomenal lap time in the most efficient manner possible.

My point with that analogy is, this is a game. Like a sports car, its primary goal is to entertain you enough that you keep coming back. Some place behind that you might find some tertiary goal stating that it has to be the most perfect and impartial method for testing players' abilities at playing it. As such, the balance only has to be good enough to where only the most negligible percentages of players will be able to exploit its deficiencies.

So, to answer your question: yes, cXL mirroring is simpler, probably more elegant. Is it more effective or fair? I don't think it's possible to say yes, there. If it is unfair in favor of my way we just debuff the structure bonus and if it's unfair in favor of your way we buff it, just like we'll have to for the STDs. There's nothing inherently unjust about employing the tools at your disposal to make the game playable and, since we're doing it for the STDs and declaring it okay to do, there's no way we can say it is unjust to duplicate the technique on the isXL as long as the result is an engine that is of equal value to a cXL.

Quote

I don't see this as a problem because those are the same 'Mechs that are going to prefer durability over speed.

And that's exactly what you'd get with an Std. engine. On the other hand, XL would still be a viable choice.

Well, yes, but my point was that the number of STD-prefering 'Mechs is really small, and that STD is already the leading choice for them without a buff (and often because it's not actually a choice). What we're trying to do is make STD an equitable choice for an increased number of 'Mechs, but speed brings so much more to you than being able to avoid and spread damage enough to overcome the fragility of your engine. What you will find is that people will take the buffed STD, bring one that gets them to speeds comparable to the XL builds, and then hope the extra tank factor off-sets the lack of weapons they will have once there.

Quote

Now we're getting into builds. I'm not about to try to enforce builds.

My only aim here is to create balance, contrast and meaningful choice for both techlines in the simplest and most effective method possible.

But it isn't contrast. You aren't creating contrast, you are stamping it out between the tech lines in favor of better balance within the tech lines. That is unacceptable and unnecessary.

I mean, weaker, closer, colder, faster lasers versus stronger, farther, hotter, slower lasers isn't a huge contrast when, to the player, it's still a simulated sprite effect that makes a "pew" sound when they fire regardless of size or tech class. Missiles still fire in wads for both. Both missiles and lasers are all used in the same mode under the same conditions with overlapping use cases and overlapping performance traits. The only true contrast between Clan and IS right now is in the XL engine behavior and the auto-cannon behavior. Fragile and precise, respectively, versus tanky and brutal (oddly, something of a role reversal).

Quote

Percentage's wouldn't be inconsistent, they would simply applies only to 1 type of engine. It applies to every particular engine of that type the same way

In contrast, XL would function a different way, but all XLs (despite techline) would be internally consistent.

But...an isXL is not a cXL. Yes, a Standard is more obviously different than an isXL or cXL, but an isXL is still not a cXL and if you make it so, then we never have the chance or reason to experience the flavor of the game with LFE added in (and I hope PGI does get around to advancing the tech lines simply because I want more toys to play with).

That isXL and cXL are different engines is as core to the game as STD and XL being different.

Quote

That's part of the point, to make the distinction about the engine, not the techline.

But it has to be both, otherwise the isXL should mirror the cXL in every way, including slots, and the is weapons should at least also start mirroring them in slots and tons if not necessarily in range/refire/damage, etc.

You are starting a slippery slope, my friend. You want to have one singular item be a Clan mirror and then call it quits right there, but that's not how things work. Once society sees a precedent, they will hammer on it forever until you give in again. Removing the flamer (which is now useful, ironically) from the Adder was the camel's nose in the tent, XLs would be the rest of the camel. PGI has to stop it somewhere.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 02 March 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

If we're going to stay in uncertain and inelegant territory, you might as well just do it my way since retaining isXL death has the added benefit of keeping the game that much spicier.

That is subjective though. I would be willing to bet most IS Pilots do not enjoy dying upon side torso loss and attempting to protect does not bring anything fun to the game. Getting side torso cored (or brought to near death) before you even closed with the enemy is one of the worst feelings in the game.

[Tarl Cabot]

I am sitting just outside the camp on the IS-XL is similar to C-XL, with 30% penalties vs 20% penalties. No actual engine crits in game, PGI can make its own House rules that would equate to 4 engine crits=disabled engine/mech.

As for STD engine - leave it as is. Currently no adverse effects to losing one or both side torsos except for weapons/equipment/etc on that side.

With a number of preferred mechs, IS-XL engine does nothing for a few due to low engine cap. For the others, especially in the current laser vomit scene, no real change in loadout but mechs gain an increase in speed and may be a few heatsinks.

For the lower tiered mechs, it would allow them to equip a better loadout while gaining a modest speed increase, at least those that do not have a low engine rating. It would not move any of them to the top tier but it is this large group of mechs that would benefit the most from it.

Also, do not forget about further down the road. If/when the tech line has been advanced, the IS Omni mechs do not have to be as DOA as they could be with the current setup, unless people really want to see them quirked out?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 02 March 2016 - 07:30 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 02 March 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

That is subjective though. I would be willing to bet most IS Pilots do not enjoy dying upon side torso loss and attempting to protect does not bring anything fun to the game. Getting side torso cored (or brought to near death) before you even closed with the enemy is one of the worst feelings in the game.

Is it? When the IS weapons are quirked to be competitive with the Clan weapons, and when the IS 'Mechs have sufficient structure to offset the XL risk, they become just as good, if not better than, their Clan counter-parts. That is not conjecture, that is a widely supported belief at the top and it was even demonstrated in the video that helped trigger the blanket nerf to IS energy range.

Whether your sides are softer but less critical or harder but more critical, both approaches rely on your skill as a pilot to mitigate the risk to extract maximum performance. All we are trying to do is make sure that the maximum benefit is the same and that the level of effort required to obtain it it is equitable. As far as pure balance goes, that's all that matters. That's why I don't care for the cXL-mirror approach; we've already seen that the other way works, so it's both an unnecessary and bland approach.

Tarl Cabot, on 02 March 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

Also, do not forget about further down the road. If/when the tech line has been advanced, the IS Omni mechs do not have to be as DOA as they could be with the current setup, unless people really want to see them quirked out?

Most IS Omnis are DOA not simply because they run XL engines, but because the engines are entirely too small (most IS Omnis that aren't Lights seem to move at 64.8 kph on an XL for whatever unholy reason, including the should-have-been-good BJ-O). Then there are some with STD heat-sinks, which, you know, suck as they currently are.

There are only a few decent ones, including the Raptor, Blackhawk-KU, and Sunder.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

Is it? When the IS weapons are quirked to be competitive with the Clan weapons, and when the IS 'Mechs have sufficient structure to offset the XL risk, they become just as good, if not better than, their Clan counter-parts. That is not conjecture, that is a widely supported belief at the top and it was even demonstrated in the video that helped trigger the blanket nerf to IS energy range.

Whether your sides are softer but less critical or harder but more critical, both approaches rely on your skill as a pilot to mitigate the risk to extract maximum performance. All we are trying to do is make sure that the maximum benefit is the same and that the level of effort required to obtain it it is equitable. As far as pure balance goes, that's all that matters. That's why I don't care for the cXL-mirror approach; we've already seen that the other way works, so it's both an unnecessary and bland approach.

The part I meant was subjective was that " retaining isXL death has the added benefit of keeping the game spicier". Which is your personal opinion and something I believe many pilots would not agree with.