146 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 02 March 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

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.

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of being spicy. It is equitable from a balance perspective, but they don't necessarily like it because it doesn't suit them. Like spicy food, which is nutritious but people don't necessarily like it because it doesn't suit them.

Ergo, whether or not they agree is irrelevant.

Edit: And that's why we have options. You have Clan 'Mechs with cXL if you don't like isXL, and if we somehow manage to make STDs not terrible, you have that as an option under both tech lines. What we don't have is the ability to mix and match items from across the tech lines, which would on the net create a bland game where everybody optimizes by pulling the best items from each set into single 'Mechs.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 02 March 2016 - 08:12 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of being spicy. It is equitable from a balance perspective, but they don't necessarily like it because it doesn't suit them. Like spicy food, which is nutritious but people don't necessarily like it because it doesn't suit them.

Ergo, whether or not they agree is irrelevant.

Many people who do not like spicy food get heart burn and indigestion from it, which is certainly not healthy.

*edit
Last time I checked IS Pilots could not bring Clan mechs into CW, or is that changing in Phase 3?

Edited by Homeskilit, 02 March 2016 - 08:23 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 02 March 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

Many people who do not like spicy food get heart burn and indigestion from it, which is certainly not healthy.

*edit
Last time I checked IS Pilots could not bring Clan mechs into CW, or is that changing in Phase 3?

IS players shouldn't be wanting to play Clan style at all in that environment. Otherwise they would be playing Clans.

You don't get to say "I am Davion!" and then say "But Inner Sphere sucks so I'm bringing a Timber Wolf" in a game mode revolving entirely around the differences in tech lines. If the two are mathematically balanced, performing identically for a given level of effort, and you simply don't like the flavor, that's not a problem with the game.

An appropriate analogy would be Counter-Strike: CTs get the M4, Ts get the AK. They are equitably balanced, but some people don't like playing with the AK because it is so more reliant on making that first shot and getting the right cadence for banging out the subsequent shots even up close where the M4 is more potent in bursts and is fairly reliable on automatic at close ranges. But those players just suck it up and deal with it, because that's part of the game. The guns have the same value, they just operate differently.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

IS players shouldn't be wanting to play Clan style at all in that environment. Otherwise they would be playing Clans.

You don't get to say "I am Davion!" and then say "But Inner Sphere sucks so I'm bringing a Timber Wolf" in a game mode revolving entirely around the differences in tech lines. If the two are mathematically balanced, performing identically for a given level of effort, and you simply don't like the flavor, that's not a problem with the game.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

And that's why we have options. You have Clan 'Mechs with cXL if you don't like isXL

You do realize that these two statements contradict each other right?

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 02 March 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

You do realize that these two statements contradict each other right?

<Deleted knee-jerk response, am tired>

I am afraid you will have to be more specific, because they don't appear to be.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 02 March 2016 - 09:58 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Well you cannot say "We have Clan mechs if you do not like iXL" when IS pilots cannot use Clan mechs in CW.

Unless you are suggesting that choosing the faction I desire to play should revolve entirely around the differences in XL engines rather than say the mechs themselves, or the weapons they carry.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 02 March 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well you cannot say "We have Clan mechs if you do not like iXL" when IS pilots cannot use Clan mechs in CW.

Unless you are suggesting that choosing the faction I desire to play should revolve entirely around the differences in XL engines rather than say the mechs themselves, or the weapons they carry.

But you are missing the point of CW when you say that, which is to highlight the differences between Clans and IS and then use their respective strengths and weaknesses accordingly. Anybody interested in CW should be embracing the differences because that's what it's about.

What I am telling you is that the faction you choose to play in such a mode, assuming you are playing to win, should be the one that you are most technically comfortable playing, regardless of the specific reasons why. If isXL exploding is enough to turn you off, despite offering enough of a structure buff to make it, in combination with IS weapons and such, as good as a similar Clan 'Mech, then you should consider playing Clan 'Mechs instead. If you are torn between cXL and IS weapons, well, I guess you have to decide what's the most valuable to you.

The entire reason we have two tech bases is precisely because are not alike. They are supposed to be equal in potential but different in style and execution. As long as they are equal, there is no legitimate complaint you can make about the game's inter-factional balance.

If you like playing Counter-Terrorist but hate having to use the USP first round, you are just going to have to deal with it until you buy or find a gun you like. Or get used to it and get good with it. Or whatever.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:16 PM, said:

But you are missing the point of CW when you say that, which is to highlight the differences between Clans and IS and then use their respective strengths and weaknesses accordingly. Anybody interested in CW should be embracing the differences because that's what it's about.

What I am telling you is that the faction you choose to play in such a mode, assuming you are playing to win, should be the one that you are most technically comfortable playing, regardless of the specific reasons why. If isXL exploding is enough to turn you off, despite offering enough of a structure buff to make it, in combination with IS weapons and such, as good as a similar Clan 'Mech, then you should consider playing Clan 'Mechs instead. If you are torn between cXL and IS weapons, well, I guess you have to decide what's the most valuable to you.

The entire reason we have two tech bases is precisely because are not alike. They are supposed to be equal in potential but different in style and execution. As long as they are equal, there is no legitimate complaint you can make about the game's inter-factional balance.

If you like playing Counter-Terrorist but hate having to use the USP first round, you are just going to have to deal with it until you buy or find a gun you like. Or get used to it and get good with it. Or whatever.

And what I am trying to say is that you can still have two entirely different tech lines with XLs being equal across both factions.

IF ANYTHING, the side that has more range should be the side that is more fragile, not the side with less.

I would be perfectly fine with reducing cXL to death on ST loss but I have a feeling most Clan Pilots would find this unacceptable (and that should tell you something).

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 02 March 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

And what I am trying to say is that you can still have two entirely different tech lines with XLs being equal across both factions.

And what I am saying is that you don't have to mirror the XLs to have balance.

Balance is all that matters. Whether or not it's the flavor you or I like is irrelevant, but if I can have balance (and I can) and keep the IS as distinct as possible, I am going to fight for that.

Quote

IF ANYTHING, the side that has more range should be the side that is more fragile, not the side with less.

If you have balance, neither side is more fragile. Both XL types require you to keep moving and spreading to not get wrecked. The difference is that you'll have to burn through two STs on the Clans with vanilla hit-points that individually pop pretty easy but require both to score a kill, or wear through the tougher hit-points on an IS 'Mech to get just one of its sides to go boom. If it takes you the same amount of effort and time to kill an IS 'Mech using Clan gear or vice versa across all range brackets, it's balanced.

And there are other ways to balance range than using durability. Reductions in DPS, increased heat, increased duration, etc. are all on the table.

Quote

I would be perfectly fine with reducing cXL to death on ST loss but I have a feeling most Clan Pilots would find this unacceptable (and that should tell you something).

Your premise is flawed.

They would object because none of those Clan 'Mechs have structure buffs to offset this new weakness like many IS 'Mechs currently do, many of them actually have middling hit-boxes, and all of the Omnis have locked engines.

They would also object because that's not how cXL work, just like I'm objecting to the opposite because that's not how isXL work.

isXL and cXL are two distinctly different engines. By making the former ape the latter, you remove an entire technology from the game further down the road and unnecessarily dilute the faction's character.

Nobody in here has put forth a solid, factual argument for why isXL must mirror cXL when it has been irrevocably demonstrated by the top players and teams in the game that we can get parity using a form of structure-buff mechanic. We are all just arguing for why we prefer our flavor, and from where I sit, I have the higher position because not being the same was the way the game was intended and because making them the same would necessitate a reversal of that position if PGI ever advances the tech in the game. I do not like creating more work for the future.

[Homeskilit]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

And what I am saying is that you don't have to mirror the XLs to have balance.

Balance is all that matters. Whether or not it's the flavor you or I like is irrelevant, but if I can have balance (and I can) and keep the IS as distinct as possible, I am going to fight for that.

You can have flavor in any and every place you want it but the basic components of mechs (Engines, Structure, Armor) should function the same regardless of said flavors.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

If you have balance, neither side is more fragile. Both XL types require you to keep moving and spreading to not get wrecked. The difference is that you'll have to burn through two STs on the Clans with vanilla hit-points that individually pop pretty easy but require both to score a kill, or wear through the tougher hit-points on an IS 'Mech to get just one of its sides to go boom. If it takes you the same amount of effort and time to kill an IS 'Mech using Clan gear or vice versa across all range brackets, it's balanced.

And there are other ways to balance range than using durability. Reductions in DPS, increased heat, increased duration, etc. are all on the table.

Take away the structure quirks from IS mechs (with iXL=cXL) or give them to all mechs equally then (with XL as is). These structure quirks should equal the amount of armor + structure in an equivalent Clan mech, that way every IS mech has 2 ST in each single ST. In either case mechs of equivalent size would be equal both inside and across the tech lines.

Why go through all the hassle of giving every IS mech structure quirks "for flavor" when we can equalize #ST loss to death and quirks can be what they were intended for, helping weaker mechs be competitive.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

Your premise is flawed.

They would object because none of those Clan 'Mechs have structure buffs to offset this new weakness like many IS 'Mechs currently do, many of them actually have middling hit-boxes, and all of the Omnis have locked engines.

They would also object because that's not how cXL work, just like I'm objecting to the opposite because that's not how isXL work.

isXL and cXL are two distinctly different engines. By making the former ape the latter, you remove an entire technology from the game further down the road and unnecessarily dilute the faction's character.

Nobody in here has put forth a solid, factual argument for why isXL must mirror cXL when it has been irrevocably demonstrated by the top players and teams in the game that we can get parity using a form of structure-buff mechanic. We are all just arguing for why we prefer our flavor, and from where I sit, I have the higher position because not being the same was the way the game was intended and because making them the same would necessitate a reversal of that position if PGI ever advances the tech in the game. I do not like creating more work for the future.

As I said before, if iXL was made equal to cXL then structure buffs would not be needed and could be removed.

TT or Lore reasons for iXL and cXL being how they are need to be thrown out the window. What worked for a dice game in the 80's or in books does not work in a MMO PvP game in 2016.

iXL must equal cXL because a game must have rules that apply equally to both sides in order to have fair competition. Find me any major sport or even video game (mlg status) where one side gets a distinctly different set of rules then the other. In the case of MWO that rule being #ST = death for each faction.

Edited by Homeskilit, 03 March 2016 - 12:57 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Okay, going to take a step back and approach this from a different angle.

The board game came out as Battledroids before it had to change its name, which became Battletech. The game started out with all mechs using STD engine that had 6 engine slots in the CT. 1st engine crit generated +5heat / 2nd engine crit generated +10heat / 3rd engine crit disabled engine/mech.

Add Star League and Clan techs. Original play testing had Clans using in Star League era technology, and using their current customs were brought to a standstill way before the Tukayyid event. That brought in the Clan tech with harder hitting, longer ranged weapons and other Clan components including shaving off an engine crit from each side of the isXL engine.

Mind you, the base 3strikes=it's out did not change, even though the engines went from having 6 engine criticals to 10(cXL) and 12(isXL). The board game hits/misses/where did it hit was still being decided by dice, while in lore that was being done by standard targeting computers.

Overall, board game-wise, there was no real need to change that rule. An IS mech using an isXL engine only had to really worry about the loss of the side torso if it had a gauss rifle or explosive ammo stored there, otherwise engine crits occurred in more than one location.

iirc, the LFE happened cause the IS did not have an excess of isXL engines, the engineers/scientists familiar with it, nor the time to evolve it to match the cXL. They did have lots of battle salvage to reverse engineer the cXL to come up with the LFE but with only a 75% weight savings instead of the 50%, but with the same bulk as the cXL. Specialize mechs could be equipped with battle salvaged Clan engines but there definitely not enough of them dropping to make that even feasible. FASA could not have an IS state reverse engineer the cXL and start spitting it out copies of it.

For the board game rules, in that type of environment they had no reason to change how engine crits worked, when targeting, hitting and where that hit lands was being decided by dice.

Also remember, the rest of the MWO gaming components have health points, for most the same amount of health points. Those components are not disabled/destroyed by a single crit.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 March 2016 - 04:15 PM.

[Lugh]

Homeskilit, on 25 February 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

That is the first step to balancing the game is to either buff isXL to cXL status or reduce cXL to isXL status.

You IS fanboys and your never ending cries of NERF CLANS LOL.

Really need to learn to play. I imagine most of you were on the Poptarts are too powerful bandwagon back in the day too when there WERE NO CLANS.

There is nothing in the game that other people are doing that you cannot also be doing if you build your mechs correctly.

[Mister Blastman]

Unfortunately changing the XL mechanic in Inner Sphere 'mechs will result in some ridiculously overpowered builds so... no.

If Clam 'mechs can't remove endo/ferro/change engine sizes, Inner Sphere robits don't get superXL.

[Homeskilit]

Mister Blastman, on 03 March 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Unfortunately changing the XL mechanic in Inner Sphere 'mechs will result in some ridiculously overpowered builds so... no.

If Clam 'mechs can't remove endo/ferro/change engine sizes, Inner Sphere robits don't get superXL.

The reason Clan mechs have locked endo/ferro/engines is because your endo/ferro/engine costs significantly less crit space than the IS equivalent. Not to mention your weapons costing less tonnage and crit space also.

Now if you want to equalize that, make your Clan ferro/endo cost 14 tones each instead of 7, make your XLs cost 12 crit instead of 10, and increase the tonnage of your weapons and crits to match IS, then by all means go ahead and unlock the Clan chassis.

Edited by Homeskilit, 03 March 2016 - 12:42 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Mister Blastman, on 03 March 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Unfortunately changing the XL mechanic in Inner Sphere 'mechs will result in some ridiculously overpowered builds so... no.

If Clam 'mechs can't remove endo/ferro/change engine sizes, Inner Sphere robits don't get superXL.

Ya know, I have asked this a few times of others to name mechs that would be overpowered with upgraded isXL engines when someone throws BS out like that but no one has ever replied.

Firestarter? The primary difference between it and the Cheetah, excluding the Cheetah's ECM, is that it dies with the loss of a side torso. With the loss of a side torso w/modified isXL engine (-30%) it would run hotter than a Cheetah (-20). So, are you saying that cheetahs are OP?

Blackjacks? There goes those structural quirks. The primary reason it is preferred is the high engine mounts.

Stalker? Due to low engine rate most builds actual would suffer using an isXL engine.

T-bolts? Armaments would not change, a speed increase of 10kph from 64kph to 74kph

Banshee M? Speed increase of approx 10kph from 58kph to 68kph and a couple of more DHS.

How are those Orion llC doing? IS Orion would be in the same boat but with heavier, bulkier equipment. The loss of a side torso of upgraded isXL would still rack up 30% penalties (currently heat AND movement). Right, the IS versions of the orion, hunchbacks and highlanders would be sooo freaking OP they would need to be given negative weapon quirks and negative structural quirks!!!! And cataphracts ability to even equip an upgraded isXL engines would be blocked from the game.

Your turn.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 March 2016 - 03:31 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Homeskilit, on 03 March 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

You can have flavor in any and every place you want it but the basic components of mechs (Engines, Structure, Armor) should function the same regardless of said flavors.

Now THERE is a contradiction in terms. There are no "basic components," only "components." You are making up an entire category to try to base your argument around, and in so-doing you have stated "you can have any flavor you want in every place you want except you can't, as I have declared this off-limits because I don't like it."

At any rate, a Standard Engine is literally the same item across both factions. There is no "Clan Standard Engine." An XL Engine, however, is distinct from a Clan XL Engine. That's why there's a "Clan" appended to the name, or they'd merely call it an XL Engine. Just like ER Large Laser versus Clan ER Large Laser or Ultra AC/5 versus Clan Ultra AC/5. You want all of those to be identical, too? How completely tasteless and unimaginative.

Quote

Take away the structure quirks from IS mechs (with iXL=cXL) or give them to all mechs equally then (with XL as is). These structure quirks should equal the amount of armor + structure in an equivalent Clan mech, that way every IS mech has 2 ST in each single ST. In either case mechs of equivalent size would be equal both inside and across the tech lines.

Why go through all the hassle of giving every IS mech structure quirks "for flavor" when we can equalize #ST loss to death and quirks can be what they were intended for, helping weaker mechs be competitive.

Okay, now I know you haven't read the thread because placing the durability buff into the engine is exactly what I've been advocating.

Also, it doesn't have to be quite as much as 2ST per ST, because damage spread. Doing that is OP as h*ll. We already tried 1.5 STs on the Blackjack, and even that was too good.

Quote

As I said before, if iXL was made equal to cXL then structure buffs would not be needed and could be removed.

Equal in value is what they need to be. You do not need to be equal in operation to be equal in value, otherwise let's just pack up and go home, because all weapons should behave the same and all 'Mechs should look the same and all 'Mechs should move the same, with the same hard-points in the same places. Hell, just remove customization entirely, and place everybody into grey boxes with fixed weapons!

Quote

TT or Lore reasons for iXL and cXL being how they are need to be thrown out the window. What worked for a dice game in the 80's or in books does not work in a MMO PvP game in 2016.

I am the last person you should be implying as a grognard. I am only concerned with the intrigue of the game as a game, and when it is a fact that the two engines can be equal in value without being the same in operation, and when it is a fact that the game is meant to have two equal but different factions, then anybody trying to make the differences less distinguished has an agenda aligned against the vision of the game.

Quote

iXL must equal cXL because a game must have rules that apply equally to both sides in order to have fair competition.

False. Actually, not false, but you are failing to understand what "the rules" actually entail. I'll avail you: they include any and all mechanisms in the game, including equipment values and behavioral traits.

Quote

Find me any major sport or even video game (mlg status) where one side gets a distinctly different set of rules then the other. In the case of MWO that rule being #ST = death for each faction.

Baseball (Batting team is played very differently than the pitching team, and you can win or lose the game with either as both sides can be played offensively or defensively)

American Football (Similar deal to baseball)

Nosgoth (Humans vs. Vampires; slow and ranged versus fast and melee, has a comp scene)

Starcraft 1 & 2 (Do I really have to explain this one)?

DotA 2 (If you don't get this one, you are a lost cause)

League of Legends

Counter-Strike (The two sides have different weapons, different objectives, different char silhouettes)

And MLG status? Please. That garbage organization is single-handedly responsible for ruining Halo, one of my favorite games. I lived and breathed it for 11 years. Bungie spent three titles trying to undo the damage they did by listening to those inbred swine with Halo 2, and they could never quite get out of it because they had dug that hole too deep and now all the potatoes-***-l33tz expected that unbalanced, easy-access sh!t-pile in every subsequent entry.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 03 March 2016 - 04:16 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Been busy recently, but thought I should do the courtesy of a direct response.

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

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.

You're right, we will need to work out and adjust to values (of structure buffs to Std engines) under my proposal.

But again, you won't have to answer this question directly because there is no direct counterpart to Std engines.

If you change isXL to function like cXL, you create parity and no longer need to answer this question at all in regard to isXL durability.

That's one of the biggest problems with durability buffs (currently via Quirks) to isXL: the fact that the cXL counterpart is a direct correlate and necessitates that there is never a satisfactory durability value to create parity.

Making this change creates 2 kinds of durability. One for XL and one for Std. engines; thus making the choices more meaningful and contrasted.

On the other hand, the suggestion to buff the durability (structure) of isXL to one level and Std. to another just creates two tiers of the same kind of durability and leaves XL with a still unacceptable lack of parity to cXL and begs the question again: "How much durability should it get to create said parity?"

That's really just two-way imbalance.

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

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

This was in reference to the method of balancing, not to engine balance.

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

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.

Yup, I know!

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

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.

This is subjective, so I'm not going to speak to it.

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

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.

I don't see how creating objective and actual parity can be anything less than "fair". That's really definitive fairness.

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

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.

Except that adding durability (structure) buffs to isXL circles us back to the initial problem with Quirks and leaves us in that constant loop. It only changes the name and never actually creates objective parity.

Changing the function of isXL to be like cXL makes both engines viable for both techlines and is also completely fair in a way that we don't have now (Std. engines are a non-choice for Clans)

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

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.

It will make both engines a viable and equitable choice for more 'Mechs. Most of those will be in the Medium/Heavy classes

It's intentional that people will probably bring bigger Std. engines. They will then sacrifice weapons loadout for durability.

Besides, there are other factors that push a 'Mech build toward XL/Std. (or would, should this change be made): weight limit, crit spaces and hardpoints, namely.

This is, again, speaking to build choices which I will not directly consider here.

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

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.

Being acceptable or unacceptable is a fully subjective.

I will agree that this reducing a single point of contrast between techlines.

BUT, it is creating greater and more meaningful contrast within each techline.

At the same time, it is creating more real and well defined balance and creating more meaningful choice within each techline.

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

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).

This is simply not true.

Those differences in heat, range and damage do affect playstyle. The player who doesn't understand this may not see the differences, but they are there and meaningful.

• Lasers: range and heat is a huge playstyle factor. (It's also one of the reasons why IS received so many Quirks to buff their lasers. This has lead to homogenization of playstyle; thus those Quirks should be removed.)
  
• Missiles: the flight (IS) or stream (Clan) launch type definitely affects the way missiles hit. IS missles are harder for AMS to shoot down and hard for players to avoid (as more hit at one time). Clan missiles are lighter, but easier to shoot down and avoid the most of due to the way they stream out on-by-one over a greater period of time.
  
• Ballistics: single slug (IS) or burst (Clan) affects accuracy, damage concentration and face time.

The point is, the engine is not the only meaningful difference. In fact, the IS engines choices being as they are is pushing the homogenization of some of these other differences (especially laser differences)

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

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.

This is also not really true.

All XL engines (all engines, for that matter) are supposed to follow the same rules; as they did in TT. I am not suggesting TT values, but with the change in MWO to lack engines crits, they also changed the engines to be inconsistent for durability.

This is NOT the spirit of BT/TT/lore/"fair competition"/"level playing field"/"balanced gameplay".

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

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.

It doesn't have to be both; that's an opinion.

Also, even if isXL and cXL function the same, that in no way requires other parts of the tech to function the same.

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

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.

Stating that there is a slippery slope does not make it true. You have to evidence that.

There is no slippery slope because there is no evidence to show that if they change the function of isXL that other thing must/will follow.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Lugh, on 03 March 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

You IS fanboys and your never ending cries of NERF CLANS LOL.

Really need to learn to play. I imagine most of you were on the Poptarts are too powerful bandwagon back in the day too when there WERE NO CLANS.

There is nothing in the game that other people are doing that you cannot also be doing if you build your mechs correctly.

For the record: I have an IS tag right now, but prefer Clan 'Mechs.

My motivation and rationale for this change is purely to create real balance and meaningful choice to both techlines.

Mister Blastman, on 03 March 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Unfortunately changing the XL mechanic in Inner Sphere 'mechs will result in some ridiculously overpowered builds so... no.

If Clam 'mechs can't remove endo/ferro/change engine sizes, Inner Sphere robits don't get superXL.

Only if they retain their super-Quirks.

Fortunately, that is not the proposal under discussion.

Homeskilit, on 03 March 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

The reason Clan mechs have locked endo/ferro/engines is because your endo/ferro/engine costs significantly less crit space than the IS equivalent. Not to mention your weapons costing less tonnage and crit space also.

Now if you want to equalize that, make your Clan ferro/endo cost 14 tones each instead of 7, make your XLs cost 12 crit instead of 10, and increase the tonnage of your weapons and crits to match IS, then by all means go ahead and unlock the Clan chassis.

Just as a note:

Locked structure/armor/engine is a function of Omnimech construction type, not Clantech.
_______________

Clarifications for all:
Omnnmechs have locked equipment but can change hardpoints via Omnipods
Battlemechs can change equipment type but have locked hardpoints.

Clans currently have both types of 'Mech.
IS currently only has Battlemechs, but will inevitably have Omnimech's, too.

[Gyrok]

Tarl Cabot, on 03 March 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

Ya know, I have asked this a few times of others to name mechs that would be overpowered with upgraded isXL engines when someone throws BS out like that but no one has ever replied.

You want a list?

Ok...

Atlas
King Crab
Banshee
Mauler
Highlander
Stalker
Battlemaster
Victor
Awesome
Zeus
Black Knight
Marauder
Orion
Warhammer
Cataphract
Grasshopper
Jager
Catapult
Quickdraw
Dragon
Rifleman
Shadow Hawk
Griffin
Wolverine
Kintaro
Centurion
Hunchback
Enforcer
Crab
Blackjack
Vindicator
Cicada
Wolfhound
Panther
Jenner
Firestarter
Raven
Spider
Commando
Locust

A few would be decidedly less OP than others...however...all of them would be ridiculously strong immediately. Unless you are willing to part with all your precious quirks and play even tech trees at that point...and even then...those mechs would be still be OP compared to clan mechs because of many other factors...like infinite customization, single projectile ACs, STD PPCs, tighter SRM spread, higher DPH, shorter duration lasers, and many other things that are heavily in the IS tech tree's favor at the moment.

Edited by Gyrok, 03 March 2016 - 05:16 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Quick follow up:

Also, everyone please maintain civility; I can feel the tension building in this thread!

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

....

They would object because none of those Clan 'Mechs have structure buffs to offset this new weakness like many IS 'Mechs currently do, many of them actually have middling hit-boxes, and all of the Omnis have locked engines.

They would also object because that's not how cXL work, just like I'm objecting to the opposite because that's not how isXL work.

Actually, I think they would object because nerfing this function is a pretty major change and people bought into Clan 'Mechs with the understanding that they wouldn't die from 1x ST loss.

That is, once you give something a feature and attach it to a cost, that feature now become part of the value of the item. Removing that feature reduces value for the consumer. That's tantamount to cheating those who have already purchased Clan 'Mechs (whether with real money or C-Bills).

So we can't do that.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

isXL and cXL are two distinctly different engines. By making the former ape the latter, you remove an entire technology from the game further down the road and unnecessarily dilute the faction's character.

That's not really true. They are actually supposed to be correlates; thus, making them function different like this is not in keeping with their intended function

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

Nobody in here has put forth a solid, factual argument for why isXL must mirror cXL when it has been irrevocably demonstrated by the top players and teams in the game that we can get parity using a form of structure-buff mechanic.

"Must" is a strong word. I prefer "should" in this discussion.

It's true that durability buffs have provided a superficial balance (or, rather, an illusion of balance).

What they haven't done is provide meaningful choice to both techlines (Std engine is a non-choice for Clans) or created a lasting and agreed upon balance (they've not created real parity, just superficial balance). This latter continues to beg the question about what value is fair for these correlates.

This cycle of revisiting Quirks every patch or two could be completely averted by changing the function of isXL (to be like cXL). It's much simpler and cleaner.

Moreover, once it's done, it's done. No more developer time on it. Only Std. engines need to be worried about, and even that is much easier since it is not 'Mech by 'Mech, but a percentage adjustment to the system.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

We are all just arguing for why we prefer our flavor, and from where I sit, I have the higher position because not being the same was the way the game was intended and because making them the same would necessitate a reversal of that position if PGI ever advances the tech in the game. I do not like creating more work for the future.

Again, this isn't really true. The intention of the current engine dynamic is to imitate the "3 crit = death" mechanic. That's intending them to be the same, but actually causing them to be different.

This change would actually make them closer to the intended function of the engines.

Further, my position is not from one of "flavor", but only from one of real balance, meaningful choice and contrast, simplicity and fairness.