146 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Homeskilit, on 25 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

Why don't we save structure buffs for the rest of the mech for Standard Structure? That way it is a viable alternative to Endo Steel?

Make it stack.

STD Engin +STD Structure for maximum tank.

Both ensure large sacrifices were made, in weapons and speed both.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Homeskilit, on 25 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

Why don't we save structure buffs for the rest of the mech for Standard Structure? That way it is a viable alternative to Endo Steel?

Standard everything should get a buff to durability. This works out excellently.

Consider:

Those assaults that don't want to use the crit space? Great! Use Std. structure and armor and become tankier.

Those lights that want to be really fast? Great! Use ES and FF and be quick but fragile.

Those mediums/heavies that want to strike a balance? Great! Take ES and be lighter or take Std. and have a buff to structure. Take FF and be lighter or take Std. and have a buff to armor.

This is another viable alternative to durability Quirks.

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

standard structure is already a viable alternative to endosteel for IS assault mechs. you get 14 extra crit slots in exchange for 10% of your mechs tonnage. 14 crit slots is a lot. I dont know many assault mechs that wanna give up 14 crit slots.

its clan standard structure that needs a buff compared to endo. Because theres almost no reason for a clan assault not to take clan endo since its only 7 crit slots instead of 14.

IS ferro fibrous also needs a major buff because its outright worse than IS endo steel. IS ferro fibrous should give 12% damage reduction in addition to making armor weigh 12% less. Clan ferro fibrous should get damage reduction as well since its also worse than Clan endo but it should only be 7% instead of 12% since clan ferro is 67% lighter than IS ferro.

But yeah they really need to buff clan standard structure and IS/clan ferro fibrous.

Mostly, Std. structure is only viable for assaults. Std. armor is viable from medium up, but giving it a little extra would do little except increase TTK for many 'Mechs.

I do agree that the weight savings for FF should be equal to ES, considering they take the same amount of slots. It's just not a good option for most.
_______________
Note: Weight savings from ES are actually 5% of total 'Mech tonnage.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

standard structure is already a viable alternative to endosteel for IS assault mechs. you get 14 extra crit slots in exchange for 10% of your mechs tonnage. 14 crit slots is a lot. I dont know many assault mechs that wanna give up 14 crit slots.

The overwhelming majority of my battlemech builds use endo steel, including my Assaults. The only mechs I have without ES are my non-ES omnis and the mechs I bought on sale but haven't played yet. And one crappy LRM Stalker build. That's it.

About the only reason to use Standard structure is if you want to pack in a boatload of DHS for a laservomit build, but even with those I usually take ES so I can fit a bigger engine.

[Khobai]

Quote

The overwhelming majority of my battlemech builds use endo steel, including my Assaults.

So? As long as some IS mechs have a reason to use standard structure then its fine how it is. Atlases/King Crabs often use standard structure because they dont like giving up 14 crit slots for example because they lose a considerable number of critslots tat could be used for other things like more ammo/heatsinks.

But even 100 ton clan assaults have no reason not to use clan endo (youll never see a Kodiak without endo). because its always worth 7 crits. Thats why clan standard structure needs a buff way more than IS standard structure.

Just like IS ferro fibrous needs a buff way more than clan ferro fibrous.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2016 - 08:57 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

So? As long as some IS mechs have a reason to use standard structure then its fine how it is. Atlases/King Crabs often use standard structure because they dont like giving up 14 crit slots for example because they lose a considerable number of critslots tat could be used for other things like more ammo/heatsinks.

But even 100 ton clan assaults have no reason not to use clan endo (youll never see a Kodiak without endo). because its always worth 7 crits. Thats why clan standard structure needs a buff way more than IS standard structure.

Just like IS ferro fibrous needs a buff way more than clan ferro fibrous.

I think what Kaeb is trying to say is that giving Std. structure/armor a durability buff (not a huge one mind you, just a +5% or +10%) wouldn't break the game and would incentivize a piece of equipment largely left unused outside a single weight class.

It probably would actually improve the game by making more builds viable and increasing TTK on tank build 'Mechs.

Consider the Atlas. Currently it has all those structure Quirks. But if Std. engines/structure/armor all got durability buffs, it wouldn't need those Quirks at all! It would be the most durable 'Mech on the battlefield just by being the Atlas (alongside the King Crab).

The Direwolf, on the other hand, running the cXL would still come up short on it for durability, even if its Std. structure/armor gave it durability buffs.

If you absolutely wanted the Atlas to be the #1 most durable (even against the King Crab or future Std. everything Kodiak) you could just give it very small durability Quirks and that would put it over the edge.
_______________

Note: The Direwolf has Std. structure., I think it's safe to say that Kodiak will have builds that use both.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 25 February 2016 - 09:14 PM.

[Armorine]

nope nope nope and nope. even with the xl insta death i run xls on most of my mechs. what in the heck would be the point of having a standard engine if xls didnt die from side loss?

its a trade off. you can have more weapons then odins armory.....or you can have toughness.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Armorine, on 25 February 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

nope nope nope and nope. even with the xl insta death i run xls on most of my mechs. what in the heck would be the point of having a standard engine if xls didnt die from side loss?

its a trade off. you can have more weapons then odins armory.....or you can have toughness.

Again, the proposed change for isXL to function like cXL (not die on ST loss) is predicated on the simultaneous proposal to buff the durability of Std. engines.

So, the tradeoff would still be that you could have more weapons or more toughness.

[Khobai]

Quote

I think what Kaeb is trying to say is that giving Std. structure/armor a durability buff (not a huge one mind you, just a +5% or +10%) wouldn't break the game and would incentivize a piece of equipment largely left unused outside a single weight class.

and what im saying is clan standard structure needs an even bigger incentive. because clan endo is even better and theres even less reason to use clan standard structure.

Quote

Note: The Direwolf has Std. structure., I think it's safe to say that Kodiak will have builds that use both.

Youd have to be a re tard to ever use std structure on a kodiak.

its only 7 crit slots for 5 extra tons from endo which you can use to jack up its engine rating since the kodiak will have no engine cap. 5 tons buys you a whole lotta XL engine.

kodiak will always have endo. and probably even use ferro a lot of the time too. with endo and ferro its basically like a 108-109 ton mech.

thats my whole point... clan standard structure needs some huge incentives over clan endo. just so the direwolf wont look so bad for being stuck with standard structure while the kodiak rocks endo.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2016 - 09:33 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

and what im saying is clan standard structure needs an even bigger incentive. because clan endo is even better and theres even less reason to use clan standard structure.

Well, that there is less incentive to take Std. structure for Clans is true. But I'm not sure that's a problem. If brawling is the domain of IS and range is the domain of Clans, then more IS 'Mechs using the more durable option (Std.) fits the playstyle.

Most Clan assaults would still use Std. structure because they are locked into it (Omnimechs). That also doesn't seem to be a big problem because that forces them to be more durable, something most assaults can benefit from.

Personally, I'd reduce IS ES/FF to using 10 slots instead of 14 (14 is a harsh number next to Clan's 7), but that'd be a much harder sell than even what we're proposing now.

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

Youd have to be a re tard to ever use std structure on a kodiak.

its only 7 crit slots for 5 extra tons which you can use to jack up its engine rating since the kodiak will have no engine cap.

kodiak will always have endo. and probably even use ferro a lot of the time too. with endo and ferro its basically like a 108-109 ton mech.

I don't buy it that Kodiak will exclusively run ES. Even with Direwolf having Std. structure/armor it fills all its crits pretty well. I suspect many Kodiaks will end up using Std. structure when running XL engines.

[Khobai]

Quote

I don't buy it that Kodiak will exclusively run ES.

Why not? What possible benefit does the Kodiak gets from not using ES?

Remember clan tech uses less crit slots already... so clan can spare crit slots more than IS can.

Theres no reason not to give up 7 crit slots in exchange for a bigger engine.

Quote

Huh? The only Clan Omnimech that is locked into STD engines is the Kingfisher, which isn't even in the game.

standard structure not standard engines.

Quote

Personally, I'd reduce IS ES/FF to using 10 slots instead of 14 (14 is a harsh number next to Clan's 7), but that'd be a much harder sell than even what we're proposing now.

Why 10? Why not 7?

Clan and IS are supposed to be balanced 1:1 afterall

You cant have 1:1 balance when clan tech is still outright better than IS tech

It screws up stock builds but no one plays stock mechs anyway.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2016 - 09:46 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:42 PM, said:

Why not? What possible benefit does the Kodiak gets from not using ES?

Remember clan tech uses less crit slots already... so clan can spare crit slots more than IS can.

Theres no reason not to give up 7 crit slots in exchange for a bigger engine.


standard structure not standard engines

Yeah, but even the Direwolf sometimes feels crit space squeezed. I think that Kodiak builds will be similarly on the edge of crit space and tonnage.

And of course, cXL is a given.

Not everyone is going to want to invest lots of tonnage for small speed increases.

I think it will have a variety of builds; some for speed, some for pure hitting power.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah, but even the Direwolf sometimes feels crit space squeezed. I think that Kodiak builds will be similarly on the edge of crit space and tonnage.

right but a bigger engine also gives you more crits because you can fit more heatsinks inside the engine

so endo doesnt actually cost 7 crit slots... because youre going to get some of those crit slots back by having a bigger engine.

theres literally no reason not to take endo on a kodiak. the cost is so trivial for what you gain in return.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2016 - 09:52 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:42 PM, said:

Why 10? Why not 7?

Clan and IS are supposed to be balanced 1:1 afterall

You cant have 1:1 balance when clan tech is still outright better than IS tech

It screws up stock builds but no one plays stock mechs anyway.

Doesn't really mess up stock builds, just opens more crit spaces, they could still have all the same loadouts and no one would see a difference in tonnage or equipment.

Why 10? Flavor. I could go with 7, but even the non-purists would scream "But... Lore!!!!"

I figured 10 helps crit space but still maintains flavor. But, yeah it was a largely arbitrary number.

[Khobai]

but 10 already deviates from lore. why not just go with 7 which both deviates from lore and makes the game balanced. if youre going through such extremes anyway, then make them the same...

clan vs IS would be way easier to balance if CXL/ISXL and CFF/ISFF and CES/ISES were all the same.

I believe in mechwarrior 3 they were all the same for both IS and clan mechs. So theres precedent for it.

Edited by Khobai, 25 February 2016 - 09:57 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

right but a bigger engine also gives you more crits because you can fit more heatsinks inside the engine

so endo doesnt actually cost 7 crit slots... because youre going to get some of those crit slots back by having a bigger engine.

I'll give you that.

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

theres literally no reason not to take endo on a kodiak. the cost is so trivial for what you gain in return.

Perhaps, time will tell, so we'll see. It'll be interesting.

Clan Battlemechs are still pretty new things in the game. How they work out in the long run is yet to be seen.

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

but 10 already deviates from lore. why not just go with 7 which both deviates from lore and makes the game balanced.

Perfectly true and reasonable.

Whether 10 or 7, I don't think anyone could ever sell this change, however reasonable it might be.

It's hard enough to sell the isXL change!

[Pjwned]

Khobai, on 25 February 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

but 10 already deviates from lore. why not just go with 7 which both deviates from lore and makes the game balanced. if youre going through such extremes anyway, then make them the same...

clan vs IS would be way easier to balance if CXL/ISXL and CFF/ISFF and CES/ISES were all the same.

I believe in mechwarrior 3 they were all the same for both IS and clan mechs. So theres precedent for it.

If that's the sort of solution we would get, I would rather have the game be balanced asymmetrically (in order to keep clan tech mostly as is) than to do that. I don't think tossing out symmetric balance is the right way to go for the game, but I can see how it could work and it'd be better than butchering any and all remaining distinctions between the 2 tech trees.

[Khobai]

asymmetric balance doesnt seem to be working very well for us at present

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Pjwned, on 26 February 2016 - 01:07 AM, said:

If that's the sort of solution we would get, I would rather have the game be balanced asymmetrically (in order to keep clan tech mostly as is) than to do that. I don't think tossing out symmetric balance is the right way to go for the game, but I can see how it could work and it'd be better than butchering any and all remaining distinctions between the 2 tech trees.

I don't think you have to worry about isES/isFF ever getting their crit slots reduced. I see this as a near impossible sell.

Besides, there are other more meaningful ways to balance the techlines, namely via weapons and IW.

I could definitely see IS having superior IW. Considering Clans were all about individual superiority, I doubt they care much about sharing info.

Of course, that would mean PGI would have to revamp the IW system to eliminate the auto-C3 and introduce Active/Passive Sensors, sensor suites and hardpoints, make active probe a meaningful counter to ECM and introduce and active probe hardpoint. I've laid out a balanced system in other threads.

Weapons already have meaningful distinctions, they just have to have the values tweaked to make the contrast greater and fix heat.

[Widowmaker1981]

FupDup, on 25 February 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

The funny thing is that even with the instadeath side torsos, the majority of IS mechs are stronger with XL engines than STD engines. Only a few mechs rely on STD engines or can choose between both engine types without one choice being clearly better.

Because the elephant in the room is that, outside of some specific mechs and dead side builds, most mechs contribute very very little after losing an ST, due to having very low remaining firepower for their size.

The Stalker is the posterchild for always using a standard because its 85 ton mass, lack of ballistic slots and low engine cap mean it really cannot benefit from using an XL, in fact it just loses heatsink space. There are other mechs - Atlas has large STs and can run its best builds with a STD350, Mechs that need the ST crit spaces for massive weapons (2xUAC5, AC20), etc. However the rest of the mechs? XL all day. Yeah you splat when your ST goes, but that XL kept you running for longer at full combat defectiveness, and that means more than doing another 50-100 dmg (and maybe saving your KDR, who cares though) with one ST left.

The standard, vaunted TBR build (2xLPL, 4xERML) has the firepower of a kitfox (with worse heat management) and the speed and agilty of a Warhawk once it loses a ST. How much damage would you expect to do with a Timberwolf sized, Warhawk speed, Kitfox armed mech? Yeah, its sweet FA. It IS better than being dead, but the game effect is actually minimal. In CW for example, if someone loses an ST in a Clan mech? Invariably they go full aggressive to die asap so they can get a new mech.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 26 February 2016 - 02:11 AM.

[Ulris Ventis]

Isn't the whole problem with IS XL engines comes out from 'Mech proportions that are somewhat invalid?
Some Mechs are too damn wide for their own good, like Awesome, or have bad ST positions like Cataphracts.
Currently mastering Black Knight and I don't have any problem running XL, if I die usually ST and CT are both orange/red at that point anyway. But that's the same, since proportions are better and more often than not you get hit in CT.