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.