220 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

The 3 crit system is the second best idea I have seen next to the IS XL shutdown on side torso loss.

The 3 crit system is a nerf to CXL while the shutdown adds survivability to the vulnerable IS XL.

Or maybe better yet do both. This is so good they are almost forced to do it.

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 March 2016 - 01:10 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

The problem seems to be that IS mechs don't get a 10-slot XL engine and LFE addresses that perfectly

The problem is that Clan XLs get more survivability for the same tonnage compared to the IS, LFEs mitigate that problem, but still require quirks to balance the IS vs Clan and also does nothing to address the cXL vs STD problem either.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

meanwhile the irony is that buffing IS XL engine survivability is the biggest band aid fix possible.

Only if that's the only thing done, the balance of engines as a whole needs work currently.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

That doesn't mean STD engines would be less viable.

Alright, let me put it this way, STDs would be less useful/used because half of the time they are used simply because they are essentially forced into using a STD engine (like Hunchbacks outside the 4SP). So while they wouldn't change with regards to viability, more options that are better would exist, meaning less usage of an engine that needs help.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

You don't see the value in avoiding engine damage penalties on side torso loss (and/or in some cases, freeing up enough crit slots) for only a bit more weight then cool

That's because the value is minimal compared to firepower, agility, and speed. The free crits in the side is actually more important than damage penalties for the simple fact in can impact how much extra firepower you can mount, that's the only thing. Honestly the side torso crits is what keeps many mediums from AC20 poking because they are either too slow or don't mount enough supplemental firepower.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

And of course, buffing IS XL engine survivability would do far more to make STD engines irrelevant without also giving a huge buff to STD engines too

Again, you act like those proposing these sorts of changes aren't suggesting changes to the STD and LF engines either, which is not the case, the OP might not have suggested it, but those that support the change definitely have (like myself).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 12:58 PM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

The problem is that Clan XLs get more survivability for the same tonnage compared to the IS, LFEs mitigate that problem, but still require quirks to balance the IS vs Clan and also does nothing to address the cXL vs STD problem either.

No, the problem is that Clans get a 10-slot XL engine while IS do not, which the LFE addresses perfectly by adding a balanced option.

As for cXL vs STD that's only a problem with IIC mechs anyways, which shouldn't even exist but because PGI must sell more mechs at any cost it's now a problem; if IIC mechs don't have a use for STD engines then unfortunately the answer is "too bad so sad."

Quote

Only if that's the only thing done, the balance of engines as a whole needs work currently.

Or it's mostly fine the way it is and all we need is the LFE so that IS mechs can have a 10-slot XL engine.

Quote

Alright, let me put it this way, STDs would be less useful/used because half of the time they are used simply because they are essentially forced into using a STD engine (like Hunchbacks outside the 4SP). So while they wouldn't change with regards to viability, more options that are better would exist, meaning less usage of an engine that needs help.

There's no problem there though, viability and not popularity is what matters. STD engines don't even need help in the first place, they're balanced fine as is and if they're not useful enough then that indicates balance problems in other areas.

Quote

That's because the value is minimal compared to firepower, agility, and speed. The free crits in the side is actually more important than damage penalties for the simple fact in can impact how much extra firepower you can mount, that's the only thing. Honestly the side torso crits is what keeps many mediums from AC20 poking because they are either too slow or don't mount enough supplemental firepower.

If you overestimate the value of the reduced tonnage savings and underestimate the value of avoiding engine damage penalties, then sure.

Quote

Again, you act like those proposing these sorts of changes aren't suggesting changes to the STD and LF engines either, which is not the case, the OP might not have suggested it, but those that support the change definitely have (like myself).

You mean changes that power creep the hell out of equipment that shouldn't be? I'm not seeing (nor have I seen) what else would satisfy people without completely changing fundamental systems in the game, which isn't needed.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 March 2016 - 01:32 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

No, the problem is that Clans get a 10-slot XL engine while IS do not, which the LFE addresses perfectly by adding a balanced option.

As for cXL vs STD that's only a problem with IIC mechs anyways, which shouldn't even exist but because PGI must sell more mechs at any cost it's now a problem; if IIC mechs don't have a use for STD engines then unfortunately the answer is "too bad so sad."



Or it's mostly fine the way it is and all we need is the LFE so that IS mechs can have a 10-slot XL engine.



There's no problem there though, viability and not popularity is what matters. STD engines don't even need help in the first place, they're balanced fine as is and if they're not useful enough then that indicates balance problems in other areas.



If you overestimate the value of the reduced tonnage savings and underestimate the value of avoiding engine damage penalties, then sure.



You mean changes that power creep the hell out of equipment that shouldn't be? I'm not seeing (nor have I seen) what else would satisfy people without completely changing fundamental systems in the game which isn't needed.

Being worthless does not equal balanced.

The Clam Battlemechs come stock with STDs, sorry if you don't like lore...you could change that, just like changing "sidesToDie='1'" if you wanted.

The 1 extra Crit slot is marginal compared to not dying with ST loss. I don't really care about it, the only difference will be for paired UACs+XL and AC20s.
In the age of LPLs, it means little.

[Pjwned]

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

Being worthless does not equal balanced.

I guess it's a good thing nothing is currently worthless or would become worthless with LFEs in the picture then.

Quote

The Clam Battlemechs come stock with STDs, sorry if you don't like lore...you could change that, just like changing "sidesToDie='1'" if you wanted.

My problem isn't clan battlemechs being equipped with STD engines, the problem is clan battlemechs shouldn't exist, and STD engines being worthless to them is telling (in small part) why they shouldn't exist.

Quote

The 1 extra Crit slot is marginal compared to not dying with ST loss. I don't really care about it, the only difference will be for paired UACs+XL and AC20s.
In the age of LPLs, it means little.

You mean the 2 extra crit slots (in both side torsos), but yes if you look at that alone then it's a pretty marginal cost and I didn't say otherwise.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

which the LFE addresses perfectly by adding a balanced option.

You can say that all you want, but engines haven't been balanced pretty much since the beginning of the BESM.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

As for cXL vs STD that's only a problem with IIC mechs anyways, which shouldn't even exist

Maybe they shouldn't, but guess what, they do, so you have to deal with that when talking about balance whether you like it or not, you can't just ignore them and pretend it didn't happen. Not to mention, what about Omni's that have STD engines and can't even switch like the Kingfisher (and IS omnis like the Strider)?

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

There's no problem there though, viability and not popularity is what matters. STD engines don't even need help in the first place, they're balanced fine as is

If you think that, you have no idea what is good in the meta currently. Few mechs run STD engines (most are assaults), and one of them does solely because you can't carry 5 AC5 in the torso with an XL (or an LFE ironically).

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

If you overestimate the value of the reduced tonnage savings and underestimate the value of avoiding engine damage penalties, then sure.

Considering most of the top tier mechs rely on XL engines, I'm pretty sure the value is on firepower and mobility currently, unless you think adding LFEs would get structure quirk nerfs across the board in which case the LFE may be slightly more attractive (but more likely Clan mechs will just be more dominant).

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

You mean changes that power creep the hell out of equipment that shouldn't be?

So you want equipment to be worthless because it is supposed to be (power creep of a different sort mind you)? If you don't want depth in this game, then sure go for it and while you are at it take away IS quirks, nerf the smaller ACs too and nerf those SHS they got too large of a buff.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 01:40 PM.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

Being worthless does not equal balanced.

The Clam Battlemechs come stock with STDs, sorry if you don't like lore...you could change that, just like changing "sidesToDie='1'" if you wanted.

The 1 extra Crit slot is marginal compared to not dying with ST loss. I don't really care about it, the only difference will be for paired UACs+XL and AC20s.
In the age of LPLs, it means little.

Structure quirks already supplement the difference quite effectively for XL engines in mechs.

Mirror balance is boring, and ends up with both sides just looking different. That is neither interesting, nor worthwhile to pursue.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 17 March 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

Structure quirks already supplement the difference quite effectively for XL engines in mechs.

Mirror balance is boring, and ends up with both sides just looking different. That is neither interesting, nor worthwhile to pursue.

Engines aren't the only thing that make sides different, and even if we were going for that angle, generally you achieve balance through trade-offs, which the iXL has no direct trade-offs, only ones made through quirks (which is in-elegant and a contributing factor as to why quirks are really bad when used for tech balance).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 02:08 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 17 March 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

Structure quirks already supplement the difference quite effectively for XL engines in mechs.

Mirror balance is boring, and ends up with both sides just looking different. That is neither interesting, nor worthwhile to pursue.

Yes, my Banshee certainly enjoys those structure quirks...wait, no it doesn't. He just has favourable hitboxes (meaning, a large CT and Shoulder Pads)

Neither does the Vindicator (arms+legs, not torso) in most cases.


Mirror balance isn't a requirement (notice how the isXL would still be strictly inferior to the Clam XL, being larger and likely with worse penalties), but keeping something significantly inferior because a robot MAY have quirks?
That's bad balance.

[Duke Nedo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

Engines aren't the only thing that make sides different, and even if we were going for that angle, generally you achieve balance through trade-offs, which the iXL has no direct trade-offs, only ones made through quirks (which is in-elegant and a contributing factor as to why quirks are really bad when used for tech balance).

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Yes, my Banshee certainly enjoys those structure quirks...wait, no it doesn't. He just has favourable hitboxes (meaning, a large CT and Shoulder Pads)

Neither does the Vindicator (arms+legs, not torso) in most cases.


Mirror balance isn't a requirement (notice how the isXL would still be strictly inferior to the Clam XL, being larger and likely with worse penalties), but keeping something significantly inferior because a robot MAY have quirks?
That's bad balance.

Just to add to what you guys said, another problems with compensating ISXL ST death by quirks is that these quirks are in no way tied to the engine they are supposed to balance. Say for example down the road PGI wants to buff both clan and IS STD engines, then the quirks that were supposed to balance the ISXL might make the IS-STD overpowered... it's just... backwards reasoning, bad design.

If PGI wants to make life easier, then they should just change the stats of the engines if they want to balance the engines. Even if we'd abandon the idea of IS XL surviving ST death and they want to give extra structure instead as asymmetric balance, then by all means they should just make the IS XL engine add ST structure when equipped, and make the STD engines do something else, like CT structure or increase agility or whatever. As long as they put the buff on the engine it self it's fine with me.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

You can say that all you want, but engines haven't been balanced pretty much since the beginning of the BESM.

Right, because if it's unpopular that always means it's bad and there aren't other reasons.

Quote

Maybe they shouldn't, but guess what, they do, so you have to deal with that when talking about balance whether you like it or not, you can't just ignore them and pretend it didn't happen. Not to mention, what about Omni's that have STD engines and can't even switch like the Kingfisher (and IS omnis like the Strider)?

When the solution is to screw up everything just so some mechs that shouldn't even exist have another option for engines when they already have a good enough option, then they can be ignored at far less cost than the alternative. If PGI makes bad decisions such as including clan battlemechs, they shouldn't make further bad decisions with crappy band aid fixes to address a problem that shouldn't have even existed in the first place.

Quote

If you think that, you have no idea what is good in the meta currently. Few mechs run STD engines (most are assaults), and one of them does solely because you can't carry 5 AC5 in the torso with an XL (or an LFE ironically).

Again, viability != popularity.

Quote

Considering most of the top tier mechs rely on XL engines, I'm pretty sure the value is on firepower and mobility currently, unless you think adding LFEs would get structure quirk nerfs across the board in which case the LFE may be slightly more attractive (but more likely Clan mechs will just be more dominant).

When we don't have a sloppy, unbalanced mess of garbage quirks everywhere (among other things) then less emphasis will be placed on firepower and mobility. Digging deeper into the shithole of balance that we have currently is not the right way to go and never will be ever.

Quote

So you want equipment to be worthless because it is supposed to be (power creep of a different sort mind you)? If you don't want depth in this game, then sure go for it and while you are at it take away IS quirks, nerf the smaller ACs too and nerf those SHS they got too large of a buff.

I want equipment to be balanced, I don't care if people don't like it because balance trumps everything. Crying about equipment being worthless (especially when it's not worthless) in order to campaign for it being megabuffed into insanity isn't achieving fuckall balance.

And for the record, I don't like how mech upgrades are handled either, i.e SHS being complete garbage and Ferro being completely inferior to Endo in every way, and I don't like how various weapon systems continue to be garbage either. My goal is absolutely not to leave various equipment to be pieces of crap (with the exception of clan STD engines because...too bad) but neither is my goal to screw up everything further with horrible band aid fixes to cover up the shitpile balance.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 March 2016 - 02:57 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

The problem is that Clan XLs get more survivability for the same tonnage compared to the IS, LFEs mitigate that problem, but still require quirks to balance the IS vs Clan and also does nothing to address the cXL vs STD problem either.

Emphasis mine.

Your statement is not...entirely accurate. That's merely a derivative problem, you need to broaden your scope. I refer back to my "forest for the trees" statement: all of you so hell-bent on making isXL survive an ST loss are hammering away on one part of a larger system. The problem isn't that cXL is better than isXL, it's that Clan everything is better than IS everything ton for ton, slot for slot. The engine is not actually any more or less important than the weapons, sinks, etc. for each set because the advantages and disadvantages they offer all feed into and off of one another.

Remember that brief period where IS had strictly superior laser range? And wiped the floor with the Clans? Did the fact that isXL explode when an ST goes make a different? No? That's because the rest of the system more than compensated. The guns were better, the heat profile was better, the mobility was better. If anything, the fact that isXL explode on ST-loss was one of the few things acting as a negative offset during that time.

And that's what it is all about. isXL don't need to necessarily behave like cXL to be balanced, their drawbacks just have to be worth considering. That means the rest of the IS gear has to be good enough that the weight savings from going XL allow you to do some fantastic things. On the other end, STD engines should provide enough durability that it's worth the sacrifice in speed and firepower.

Like I said in another thread, if we carry the way you, McGral, and others want to balance through to its logical conclusion, we might as well start allowing mix-tech because there won't be any differences in style between the two factions. Such an end betrays the game, which is not just a mathematical equation to be solved. Legacy Tech ™.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Seriously, it shouldn't be hard to think of a solution without some convoluted and over-complicated "fix" that half of you are suggesting.

cXL: No changes
IS/cSTD: Large ST and CT structure buffs, makes it more difficult to core and lose some of its firepower
ISXL: Large ST structure buff, makes it more difficult to lose a side torso vs cXL, but much easier to core vs an STD
LFE: Small to moderate ST buffs, makes it a bit more durable vs cXL since it's a bit heavier.
CFE: Huge ST and CT buffs, maybe heat bonuses as well.

There, it's a simple, easy to implement solution that doesn't mess with lore and doesn't require lots of technical work that might not work with lack of engine expertise or engine limitations.

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 17 March 2016 - 02:54 PM.

[Duke Nedo]

...and while I'm at it, the same argument goes for weapons.

Say IS Gauss is inferior to clan Gauss because it weights more with no benefits. So, in the name of balance an IS ballistic assault gets quirks for ballistics. All is good. Or? No, now people instead put 4x UAC5's, which are actually quite good, enjoying the quirks designed to help a weaker IS weapon imbalance... it just goes round and round.

Quirks on mech variants should be tied to the weakness of the variant. I.e. geometry and hardpoints. Mixing everything together is begging for balance full of loopholes.

[Davers]

Lugh, on 14 March 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

Ok in return you give ultimate customization for ALL clan chassis unlocking all locked pod bits, including the ability to put a bigger engine in my Dire, endo and ferro for all, and you can have it.

Oh, you mean the superior Clan FF and Endo, to go with your lighter weight weapons and TCs? It's funny how it seems you are asking for equality when you are actually asking to be outright better.


As a side note, saying that it is ok for IS XL engines to be so inferior because it is a balance for their customization is an acceptable argument. Saying IS XL engines are ok to be inferior because one day we might get LFEs, is not.

[Pjwned]

Duke Nedo, on 17 March 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

...and while I'm at it, the same argument goes for weapons.

Say IS Gauss is inferior to clan Gauss because it weights more with no benefits. So, in the name of balance an IS ballistic assault gets quirks for ballistics. All is good. Or? No, now people instead put 4x UAC5's, which are actually quite good, enjoying the quirks designed to help a weaker IS weapon imbalance... it just goes round and round.

Quirks on mech variants should be tied to the weakness of the variant. I.e. geometry and hardpoints. Mixing everything together is begging for balance full of loopholes.

I would also like to note that example of Clan gauss being superior in every way to IS gauss shouldn't even be true and PGI obviously dropped the ball in not addressing it immediately. Clan gauss should have had an extra drawback compared to IS gauss since a long time ago, such as increased explosion damage or decreased shot velocity or slightly longer charge duration or whatever other reasonable drawback would fit; I like the increased explosion damage personally.

Davers, on 17 March 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

As a side note, saying that it is ok for IS XL engines to be so inferior because it is a balance for their customization is an acceptable argument. Saying IS XL engines are ok to be inferior because one day we might get LFEs, is not.

Again, if the only issue was that LFE would be invalid by buffing IS XL then it wouldn't be a real concern, but that's not the only issue.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 March 2016 - 03:07 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Duke Nedo, on 17 March 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

...and while I'm at it, the same argument goes for weapons.

Say IS Gauss is inferior to clan Gauss because it weights more with no benefits. So, in the name of balance an IS ballistic assault gets quirks for ballistics. All is good. Or? No, now people instead put 4x UAC5's, which are actually quite good, enjoying the quirks designed to help a weaker IS weapon imbalance... it just goes round and round.

Quirks on mech variants should be tied to the weakness of the variant. I.e. geometry and hardpoints. Mixing everything together is begging for balance full of loopholes.

You do realize that they put small general quirks with larger specific quirks on during the first time, right? IS was still worse than Clans after the original big quirk pass, but we had idiots complaining about being penalized for not running the specific quirked loadouts - which was a load of bull because it wasn't a penalty, just an opportunity cost - and because the specific quirks prevented exactly the abuse you describe.

PGI knew exactly what was going to happen with general quirks and caved after being convinced they were wrong by the community at large.

That said, yes. We have to change the base stats on the weapons, and that is far more preferable to quirking all of the items on each 'Mech independently. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to go one particular direction to be useful, though, and that's something everybody has to keep in mind. Everybody should also keep in mind that we are not compelled to leave the Clan stuff alone, either. It is entirely possible that some Clan equipment is still so good that it's easier to nerf it than it is to buff the IS.

Finally, people need to stop thinking in terms of item vs. item. It's set vs. set, always.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

Emphasis mine.

Your statement is not...entirely accurate.

While I won't disagree that the IS XL can be worse than the cXL provided the rest of Clan stuff isn't strictly superior, the problem is that still doesn't help the other balance issues with the engines since Clan and IS share the same STD engine (which doesn't have to be the case, but currently is), and even with making the iXL behave exactly like the cXL, that would still not solve the overall balance issue, the problem is, which is more likely to happen (and harder to explain why to new player the reasoning)? Making iXL and cXL functionally the same, or giving major buffs to IS weapons to offset the fragility of the IS engines?

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

Remember that brief period where IS had strictly superior laser range? And wiped the floor with the Clans? Did the fact that isXL explode when an ST goes make a different?

This is true, but only specific mechs had the quirks to pull it off, if all ERLL had 25% extra range then yes we could talk about keeping the IS engines fragile, but I don't see those weapons getting that much of a buff anytime soon either.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

When the solution is to screw up everything just so some mechs that shouldn't even exist

Barring the fact that Clan battlemechs existed in lore (just like IS had omnis).....you still haven't answered how to handle Clan omnis with STD engines without giving them uber quirks?

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

Right, because if it's unpopular that always means it's bad and there aren't other reasons.

Again, viability != popularity.

Except most comp players use it for a reason, what proof would you have for the inverse, why exactly are you so sure STDs are better, you can't just say "because" and expect me to just accept it as the end all be all, and be aware, STDs are probably MORE popular among the entire playerbase, XLs are just more popular among the comp teams.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

When we don't have a sloppy, unbalanced mess of garbage quirks everywhere (among other things) then less emphasis will be placed on firepower and mobility.

So long as XLs gives gains in firepower, speed, AND agility, there will always be emphasis on XLs unless we see huge buffs to STD engines, which you seem to be resistant to even without the XL change.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

especially when it's not worthless

And this where many people disagree, again, there is a reason for the BESM that has maintained dominance since closed beta (it nearly took a break during the HGN-732/3C days).

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

And for the record, I don't like how mech upgrades are handled either, i.e SHS being complete garbage and Ferro being completely inferior to Endo in every way, and I don't like how various weapon systems continue to be garbage either. My goal is absolutely not to leave various equipment to be pieces of crap (with the exception of clan STD engines because...too bad)

So you cherry-pick which pieces of equipment should be balanced?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 03:37 PM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Barring the fact that Clan battlemechs existed in lore (just like IS had omnis).....you still haven't answered how to handle Clan omnis with STD engines without giving them uber quirks?

I don't have an answer because they don't need to exist.

Quote

Except most comp players use it for a reason, what proof would you have for the inverse, why exactly are you so sure STDs are better, you can't just say "because" and expect me to just accept it as the end all be all, and be aware, STDs are probably MORE popular among the entire playerbase, XLs are just more popular among the comp teams.

And this where many people disagree, again, there is a reason for the BESM that has maintained dominance since closed beta (it nearly took a break during the HGN-732/3C days).

Never said better, I said "viable."

Quote

So long as XLs gives gains in firepower, speed, AND agility, there will always be emphasis on XLs unless we see huge buffs to STD engines, which you seem to be resistant to even without the XL change.

You mean as long as ridiculous quirks and other imbalances exist that make stacking firepower and mobility the best answer at all times on every mech then that will be the case, yeah.

Quote

So you cherry-pick which pieces of equipment should be balanced?

If by cherry picking you mean taking pieces of equipment that are not balanced and making them balanced then yeah, sure.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

I don't have an answer because they don't need to exist.

So we are just going ignore a majority of Clan mechs "because"

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Never said better, I said "viable."

And just because they are "viable" doesnt mean they are balanced. Since this is partially about engine balance, simply being viable isn't really a factor.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

You mean as long as ridiculous quirks and other imbalances exist that make stacking firepower and mobility the best answer at all times on every mech then that will be the case, yeah.

You mean like the Victor poptart era, or the Timber dominance after the poptart nerf, or how the Banshee with minimal quirks is still one of the best assaults? The main common imbalance theme between all of them, is that XLs give you too much reward for the risk.

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

If by cherry picking you mean taking pieces of equipment that are not balanced and making them balanced then yeah, sure.

Except those you don't think should be in the game....which sounds a bit like cherry-picking.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 04:07 PM.