220 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 March 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

And I'll tell you right now, it will never happen. This would break far more stuff and start a much more slippery slope than unlocking Endo and Ferro, and he won't even go there, let alone to this degree, which to be frank, is pretty dang ridiculous.

O we know it wont, he wont remove the CAP on the MLX thats much lighter than IS-XL survivability

[Tarl Cabot]

Board game-wise, the extra engine crits for cXL, isXL and LFE gave extra opportunities for engine crits, which base game 3 crits/engine gone/mech unless until repaired/replaced. THAT was based on engine crits in the LT/RT AND CT.

PGI has furbar up that mechanic so fraking much it is ridiculously, and does not below in this game in its current form.

Lore-wise, certainly not even enough Clan salvage to upgrade IS mechs with cXL. isXL engines has 2 additional engine crits, making they slightly more vulnerable than cXL, especially if a side torso is lost. But that is based on ALL ENGINE crits being viable instead of this BS that PGI is using.

Quote

It has been indicated that the Clan model of Extralight Fusion Engines (cXL) requires special materials only available from facilities on the Clan homeworlds. Wolf's Dragoons spent several years building their own engines for their OmniMechs before this material shortage compelled them to find an alternative. Rather than using the bulkier (and more vulnerable) Inner Sphere engines (isXL), they successfully developed the Light Fusion Engine (LFE), which uses the same bulk of the Clan models but at half the weight savings. This is notable as it seemed the Dragoons had little trouble reproducing other Clan equipment.

But then it is asked what mechs would use a STD engine? At least those that are preferred for CW, several of the heavy/assault laser vomit mechs, such as the Stalker. The question a player would have to ask, if the isXL was made similar to cXL but with a greater heat/movement penalty, take an isXL + lose a side torso = move slower (almost like being legged) and have a heat penalty .. or stay with the STD engine? The T-bolts? The same, increased in speed/a few more DHS then be hit with a penalty w/loss of a ST? The mechs that would really benefit are lights (would then need to double leg or double torso or CT
instead of the current take side torso), mediums (move faster), most lower tiered heavy and assaults (move faster/equip better weapons).

As for structural quirks? The higher tier mechs were already higher tier mechs before those quirks. What the structural quirks have done is moved some mechs up, whether they are using STD or isXL engines. Even the players using the Clan battlemechs which are using cXL engines are asking for structural quirks because those Clan battlemechs feel "too squishy". And many of you are worried what would happen with IS mechs? (chuckles)

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 March 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Koniving, on 14 March 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

That said, I agree... and I believe the factions should each have their flavors. But how would they apply them to us? To the mechs? Personally I believe quirks should be 'optional' things you can tack onto your mech. Or bound to specific 'brands' of equipment to create more variety. Though I understand that would defeat their original purpose. However PGI has already defeated that purpose as it is in MWO.

IIRC, engine doubles behave the same for everybody. Even Smurfy says so. That means you get the same cap with the base 10 internal engine sinks. So, it starts at 60 (with 2x Elite bonus) for everybody.

So, the correct math is that Clans with 15 cDHS have 66.6 threshold and 3.16 dissipation when elited while IS have 69 threshold and 3.11 dissipation.

Peanuts.

15 sinks is honestly not enough to see the difference. You have to start getting into the more typical 24+ cDHS vs. 18+ isDHS to really start seeing the impact of behavior on the field. The only reason IS 'Mechs are fine right now is because heat gen is usually quirked. 'Mechs without any heat gen quirks, like the BLR-3M, get brutalized by heat even with 20 sinks. Firing even six MedLas is rough in that 'Mech compared to the top IS options.

As for quirks being optional, I don't know. Generally, I'm not a fan of increasing threat-level to compensate for having bad geometry or hard-points, which is the route PGI has typically taken until recently. Some 'Mechs require it, like the SDR-5V, but if the equipment is fine then most 'Mechs only need some hit-points here and there. And not necessarily structure, which frustrates me to no end because the larger problem is being disarmed lickety split (Atlas, Marauder, looking at you), not being killed.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I would normally come to this thread and give a spiel about the many benefit of making isXL function like cXL and buffing Std. engines

The simplicity, the ease, the effectiveness.

Then I would argue against all the invalid and subjective arguments that people put forth in opposition. (None of which are really based on improving gameplay, by the way!)

But I'm tired. So, I'm going to abandon selling the "easy fix" approach and suggest a more aggressive, lore-based and TT friendly method.

Implement true engine crits and the "3 crit death" rule!

This is directly following from TT rules. It's completely in keeping with lore and it has virtually the same effect in levelling the playing field and making all engines viable.

In detail, it works like this:

• Each engine uses crits. 6 for Std, 10 for cXL and 12 for isXL.
  
• Make each crit individually destructible.
  
• Each crit destroyed adds a cumulative penalty to mobility and heat. Percentage of penalty = to percentage of engine lost.
  
• When 3 crits are destroyed (no matter what location), the 'Mech is destroyed.

This done, isXL will still always die on ST loss and cXL will not necessarily die on ST loss. But it will allow for true-to-TT situations where no torso section must be lost for a 'Mech to die (be it IS or Clan).


Moreover, Std. engine retains its durability advantage without additional buffs. We can also remove most of the ridiculous durability Quirks from IS 'Mechs.

The downside is that it's resource intensive and would require a substantial amount of time put into development and may not be a cost effective solution.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 15 March 2016 - 08:05 PM.

[Beaching Betty]

NO WAY..

[thehiddenedge]

Like I said a couple pages back, the simplest solution is to increase torso twist rate for Std. engines. It helps gives IS a unique advantage in the engine department, especially in mechs that are considered XL deathtraps. It makes sense from a physics perspective and it doesn't break any of the construction rules like a lot of crazy ideas I've read in this thread.

[Hit the Deck]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 15 March 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:

...
Implement true engine crits and the "3 crit death" rule!
....

PGI said that they had actually tried that in the past and said it decreases TTK, hence the "single engine pool" we have now.

[Pjwned]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 15 March 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:

I would normally come to this thread and give a spiel about the many benefit of making isXL function like cXL and buffing Std. engines

The simplicity, the ease, the effectiveness.

Then I would argue against all the invalid and subjective arguments that people put forth in opposition. (None of which are really based on improving gameplay, by the way!)

But I'm tired. So, I'm going to abandon selling the "easy fix" approach and suggest a more aggressive, lore-based and TT friendly method.

Implement true engine crits and the "3 crit death" rule!

This is directly following from TT rules. It's completely in keeping with lore and it has virtually the same effect in levelling the playing field and making all engines viable.

In detail, it works like this:

• Each engine uses crits. 6 for Std, 10 for cXL and 12 for isXL.
  
• Make each crit individually destructible.
  
• Each crit destroyed adds a cumulative penalty to mobility and heat. Percentage of penalty = to percentage of engine lost.
  
• When 3 crits are destroyed (no matter what location), the 'Mech is destroyed.

This done, isXL will still always die on ST loss and cXL will not necessarily die on ST loss. But it will allow for true-to-TT situations where no torso section must be lost for a 'Mech to die (be it IS or Clan).



Moreover, Std. engine retains its durability advantage without additional buffs. We can also remove most of the ridiculous durability Quirks from IS 'Mechs.

The downside is that it's resource intensive and would require a substantial amount of time put into development and may not be a cost effective solution.

This isn't really much different from how it is now, the only difference is that engines can take critical hits even sooner that way and TTK is decreased further.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with a true-to-form system for engine crits, but I don't see how it's really needed either and the current system is reasonably good anyways.

I guess if your goal is to have clan XL (and if implemented, light fusion) engines suffer critical hit penalties sooner than they do now then I can see how that kind of levels the playing field a bit, but again I don't really see it as entirely necessary.

[Davegt27]

Lordred, on 14 March 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

The more I play, the more I am feeling that we really should make IS XL act like C-XL.

By that I am not saying it should take up less critical space, but only that it should gain the extra ruggedness that C-XL enjoys, lose a ST, and keep fighting, lose the second one, good night. This wouldn't render the Standard engine completely obsolete for the IS either.

We would need to use the same penalties the C-XL suffers from loss of a ST, or perhaps slightly higher ones to off set that the C-XL is clearly better then the IS-XL, perhaps a 50% speed reduction. (throwing wild numbers at the wall)


I am sure this is just going to bring out more fighting about X is OP, or Y is OP.

But I'm really coming around to the idea of making IS-XLs able to lose a ST and not be knocked out.


Fight on Forum Warriors.

OP do you mean add case to IS Mechs and lock engine size so IS can have one side torso survivability?

Seems ok to me but others might not like the idea

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Hit the Deck, on 15 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

PGI said that they had actually tried that in the past and said it decreases TTK, hence the "single engine pool" we have now.

They may have tried this and it may be that certain implementations of this can cause lower TTK; it doesn't necessitate that it will reduce TTK. So that's a BS excuse.

What's more, I'm gonna call BS on it, right now!!!

Simply changing the values of engine "health" (AKA, hit points) can regulate TTK in this method.

TTK too low? Increase engine crit HP from 10 to 20. Make those engine crits durable, but make them all equally durable (that is, increase the health across the board for Clan and IS).

Additionally, if they wanted to prevent any "sudden death" situations through critical hits, they could make engine crits immune to critical hits. We know this is possible because the Gauss Rifle has a higher crit vulnerability (or supposedly does)

So... how about that TTK now?

[Ace Selin]

Lordred, on 14 March 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

The more I play, the more I am feeling that we really should make IS XL act like C-XL.
IS-XLs able to lose a ST and not be knocked out.

Yep, this is how it should be!

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Pjwned, on 15 March 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

This isn't really much different from how it is now, the only difference is that engines can take critical hits even sooner that way and TTK is decreased further.

See above response for methods to control TTK.

Pjwned, on 15 March 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

I wouldn't necessarily argue with a true-to-form system for engine crits, but I don't see how it's really needed either and the current system is reasonably good anyways.

I guess if your goal is to have clan XL (and if implemented, light fusion) engines suffer critical hit penalties sooner than they do now then I can see how that kind of levels the playing field a bit, but again I don't really see it as entirely necessary.

Well, the benefit of this system is that it changes the way we rely on ST destruction. It allows for situations where no torso MUST be destroyed to damage the engine.

That is, the engine would now be a component within the torso, so as it destroyed crit by crit, you wouldn't necessarily lose weapons or other equipment in the torso section 1st. You might lose part of your engine, resulting in mobility penalties, but keep that ERLL or TC.

If done right, it should increase TTK for isXL and maintain about the same for cXL and Std.

A second benefit is that it's a method by which we can remove the reliance on Quirk abuse to balance and compensate IS against the current superiority of cXL. It would be a very "soft nerf" for cXL (so soft, I'm not even sure you could call it a nerf, it's more like a "balancing action") and one that no one could rightly complain about because IS would be equally subject to it!

Finally, it's a method of balance that achieves a fairness of application that all the lore-mongers out there would have nothing to say about... because it is lore and TT.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 16 March 2016 - 12:49 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

While i think balance is fine right now in terms of inter faction best options vs best options, i would support this change, with an obvious reduction in quirks at the same time, and a buff to standard engines such that they provide structure buffs to all 3 torsi, value scaling with engine size. With correctly chosen values that would prevent STD engines becoming obsolete for IS and actually introduce STD engines as a viable choice for clans compared to CXL.

To people who say it will make the eventual LFE obsolete - 1) there is no word we will ever get the LFE, and 2) introducing the LFE with current mechanics would just obsolete the STD engines anyway, so i fail to see why this way is worse.

[Moldur]

If they cut quirks and gave clan-like XLs to all, I wouldn't be mad.

Honestly, they threw out any semblance of following lore when Clan mechs were supposed to be "equal but different" compared to IS mechs. Clan tech was supposed to be flat-out superior, but it's not, and it is what it is.

Every balance decision between the mech factions should be to bring them to the same level. The most obvious and least lore friendly is allowing tech to cross any which way, but of course, people cling to their dead lore-god and ruin the game in the name of keeping it a true BT title even though every single person in the room knows it's not and it's not the goal either.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Widowmaker1981 and Moldur:

Changing isXL to function like cXL and buffing Std. engine, then removing the (most of) IS durability Quirks is just such an easy and logical change as to be silly not to do it.

But, I've been round this again and again. I've cut down argument after argument.

So, if people just can't accept the simplest and most effective change, there are alternatives! E.g., the "3 crit" rule.

[thehiddenedge]

or you could just give Std. engines higher twist rates. It's an even simpler solution.

[Duke Nedo]

To me this is a no-brainer, it would make balancing techs so much easier and the amplitude of quirks could be reduced to less extremes.

IS XL survivability would not invalidate IS STD any more than Clan XLs invalidate clan STDs in the IIc battlemechs, so that is not an argument in this question. Whatever solution is opted for, like extra structure for STD engines, should be the same for IS battlemechs and for clan battlemechs. They are in the same boat.

Right now, nobody in his right mind puts a clan STD in the IIc mechs, that shows how skewed the system is. It is broken and it needs to be repaired rather than band-aided...

Edited by Duke Nedo, 16 March 2016 - 02:10 AM.

[thehiddenedge]

Duke Nedo, on 16 March 2016 - 02:08 AM, said:

To me this is a no-brainer, it would make balancing techs so much easier and the amplitude of quirks could be reduced to less extremes.

IS XL survivability would not invalidate IS STD any more than Clan XLs invalidate clan STDs in the IIc battlemechs, so that is not an argument in this question. Whatever solution is opted for, like extra structure for STD engines, should be the same for IS battlemechs and for clan battlemechs. They are in the same boat.

Right now, nobody in his right mind puts a clan STD in the IIc mechs, that shows how skewed the system is. It is broken and it needs to be repaired rather than band-aided...

What? you just invalidated your own argument.

If no one uses Std. engines in IIC's currently and we change it so that IS have functionally similar XL's, who in the hell is going to ever use a Std. engine? The only IS mechs that use them now are assaults and the few mechs that are considered XL death traps. Sure let's make Std. engines completely obsolete. Sounds like a greeeaaat plan.....


increase twist rate for Std. engines and you now have a more viable tradeoff to both isXL and cXL

Edited by thehiddenedge, 16 March 2016 - 02:22 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

thehiddenedge, on 16 March 2016 - 02:07 AM, said:

or you could just give Std. engines higher twist rates. It's an even simpler solution.

But that doesn't address the root problem: that cXL is so much superior to isXL.

Any change to Std. is as a follow-up to a change to isXL.

Duke Nedo, on 16 March 2016 - 02:08 AM, said:

To me this is a no-brainer, it would make balancing techs so much easier and the amplitude of quirks could be reduced to less extremes.

IS XL survivability would not invalidate IS STD any more than Clan XLs invalidate clan STDs in the IIc battlemechs, so that is not an argument in this question. Whatever solution is opted for, like extra structure for STD engines, should be the same for IS battlemechs and for clan battlemechs. They are in the same boat.

Right now, nobody in his right mind puts a clan STD in the IIc mechs, that shows how skewed the system is. It is broken and it needs to be repaired rather than band-aided...

Yup. I agree with you entirely.

thehiddenedge, on 16 March 2016 - 02:18 AM, said:

What? you just invalidated your own argument.

If no one uses Std. engines in IIC's currently and we change it so that IS have functionally similar XL's, who in the hell is going to ever use a Std. engine? The only IS mechs that use them now are assaults and the few mechs that are considered XL death traps. Sure let's make Std. engines completely obsolete. Sounds like a greeeaaat plan.....

He's proposing that both isXL and Std. need to change; not that Std. should be left behind.

(Also, please check twice before responding to someone. Your response is inaccurate and a bit inflammatory. It's unnecessary; please be polite.)

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 16 March 2016 - 02:23 AM.

[thehiddenedge]

The thing is, Clan XL is supposed to be superior to IS. It's one of the trade offs for having locked engines. It's been this way for twenty plus years. It doesn't need to change now because some people want a game where both sides play exactly the same. We already have enough of this bland, balance everything the same mentality.

I instead advocate for a more meaningful choice for IS, a choice that Clan mech's, outside of IIC's, do not get. An advantage of choice.

Did I make a hyperbolic statement? sure, maybe I did, but inaccurate? Nope. Making isXL survive side torso loss makes Std. engines obsolete no matter how much you buff them, structure or otherwise. Unless of course you're talking about crazy high numbers, which will make even less logical sense.

Also, inflammatory? Because I used a bit of sarcasm? The nerve of some people... so rude around here...