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.