220 replies to this topic

[Zerberus]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 March 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Can't support. Doing so would utterly invalidate the Light Fusion Engine for the IS, as well as the STD engine in virtually all cases but when you absolutely HAVE to pack an AC20 in an ST.

People can try the zombie card, but simply, nope. There is no scenario IMO one wouldn't be better served with a Clan XL than a slower, less armed "zombie" STD build.

Nope
Nope
Nope
Nope
NOPE

Couldnß´t agree more... But for the record (an something tells me part of why some want it): a cXL and an IS AC20 in the side torso are compatible Ac 20 takes all but 2, engine takes 2

[Metus regem]

cdlord, on 16 March 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

Also, how much more does the LFE and CFE cost compared to the STD? For example the XXL is x5 the cost of STD while the XP is ~2.66x the cost... Any other heat penalties to note for the other engines too?

ICE (internal Combustion Engines) weigh in at 200% of Standard, but I don't have the cost on LFE, CFE or ICE on hand, and I didn't see anything on extra heat outside of the XXL. Everything else looks right to me though.

[Pjwned]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 March 2016 - 12:39 AM, said:

See above response for methods to control TTK.

Increasing engine health wouldn't be a bad idea if it needed to be increased.

Quote

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.

Right...

Quote

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.

Right...

Quote

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

This is where the confusion sets in because that wouldn't happen, what it would do is make mechs suffer heat & mobility penalties sooner than they do now and that would decrease TTK.

Quote

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!

You could argue that it would affect clan mechs slightly more because in that situation IS mechs are already on the brink of death and engine damage wouldn't really matter much at that point, whereas clans would be dealing with taking engine damage sooner and that would matter more because they're not necessarily on the brink of death.

Not saying it would be unfair or that it would be a very good argument against it, but that is a possible argument for clan mechs being affected by it more.

Quote

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.

Right, but it's not like the current system is unfair or anything really.

Edited by Pjwned, 16 March 2016 - 01:23 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Hit the Deck, on 16 March 2016 - 05:31 AM, said:

In TT, losing an ST also means that your XL toting IS Mech dies. This means that cXL has more advantage than having 2 crits less similar to what we have.

That's true. So, implementing the 3-crit rule is a compromise.

It's not my favorite solution. I'm strongly in favor of isXL surviving ST loss. I think that is the best and fairest solution.

But, the 3-crit rule has more possible situations where cXL can die earlier. This isn't really a buff to isXL so much as it is a change in mechanics and a soft nerf to cXL

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 March 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

There isn't a meaningful choice currently, so changing iXLs would only make that situation worse.

I still want this change though, along with buffs to STD engines to make them actually worthwhile.

You're right, meaningful engine choice is currently nil for Clans and a combo of two inferior choices for IS.

Any change needs to be implemented with planning, caution and fairness of application.

Making Std. engines viable is also a major reason why I want this change!

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Pjwned, on 16 March 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

This is where the confusion sets in because that wouldn't happen, what it would do is make mechs suffer heat & mobility penalties sooner than they do now and that would decrease TTK.

Maybe, but all that damage that is outright destroying your ST now could be diverted (somewhat) to the engine crits.

But then again, you could just keep pushing engine durability up until you got to a point where 'Mechs don't die in seconds.

This requires a play test to see for sure; but I cant see a reason why values couldn't be adjusted to mitigate results.

Pjwned, on 16 March 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

You could argue that it would affect clan mechs slightly more because in that situation IS mechs are already on the brink of death and engine damage wouldn't really matter much at that point, whereas clans would be dealing with taking engine damage sooner and that would matter more because they're not necessarily on the brink of death.

Not saying it would be unfair or that it would be a very good argument against it, but that is a possible argument for clan mechs being affected by it more.

That is part of the thinking. So many people out there are completely against making MWO further from TT.

So... I give a fully TT-based suggestion and it'll "soft nerf" Clans.

Since the goal is to bring more equality and viability to all engine choices (Clan or IS) and there is so much resistance to the "easy fix" method (even though it would absolutely only improve gameplay) because it will buff IS out of lore levels, make them too OP like Clans should be, powercreep, and all that hogwash; this suggestion will effect a similar result by decreasing power of cXL.

Pjwned, on 16 March 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Right, but it's not like the current system is unfair or anything really.

Depends on how you look at it.

The only reason that IS can stand against Clans (even with Clantech toned down as it is) is Quirks.

And Quirks are bandaids that don't address the root problem. They just seek to cover it up.

Take away those Quirks and what do you have?

And fairness isn't the only part that's important.

Quirks present other problems in their current (mis)use. There is nothing special about a Quirk, really. Lots of 'Mechs share the same basic Quirks. So they're not really quirks at all, they're just generic buffs with a different name.

And the fact that they have to keep being addressed is wasteful of developer time.

Finally, the fact that this topic is brought up over and over again by strong proponents and casuals alike, shows that there is indeed something that smacks of unfairness in the current system.

Justly speaking, no amount of compensatory Quirks on the inferior side (isXL) or penalties on the superior side (cXL) makes up for that sudden death on ST loss that isXL experiences. It's the most core problem of the techlines imbalances that people keep discussing and it and the Quirks that follow from it muddies the waters in discussions about other balance issues.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 March 2016 - 05:15 AM, said:

i do however feel a Public Test needs to be Run with IS-XL surviveability

^ This.

Yes, why can't we at least play test it?

There is certainly enough unrest about this aspect that it deserves to be tested and considered.

[Y E O N N E]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 March 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

^ This.

Yes, why can't we at least play test it?

There is certainly enough unrest about this aspect that it deserves to be tested and considered.

While I don't mind a play-test, the arguments against it have nothing to do with whether or not it will work. The arguments against it are all about "is this the only thing that can work" and we have evidence that it's not, so...yeah.

Also, your argument that no amount of quirks can compensate for the death on ST loss is 100% incorrect.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 16 March 2016 - 06:36 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 March 2016 - 06:35 PM, said:

While I don't mind a play-test, the arguments against it have nothing to do with whether or not it will work. The arguments against it are all about "is this the only thing that can work" and we have evidence that it's not, so...yeah.

There's definitely more than one way it can work. But what we haven't isn't one of them.

I've suggested two very reasonable and valid ways to make engines function more fairly.

More of the same (that is, more Quirks to compensate for an unrelated failing) is not working and just gets to a point of silliness

My position isn't and has never been that there aren't alternative methods, just none so simple and effective

Yeonne Greene, on 16 March 2016 - 06:35 PM, said:

Also, your argument that no amount of quirks can compensate for the death on ST loss is 100% incorrect.

Ok, it was hyperbole and overstatement.

It was meant to make the point that:

The more you try to compensate IS for the inferiority of isXL, the further from real balance you get. You just end up with two-way imbalance and confusing, arcane and illogical game mechanics and rules that aren't rules.

[Pjwned]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 March 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

Maybe, but all that damage that is outright destroying your ST now could be diverted (somewhat) to the engine crits.

That's not how critical hits work though, you don't have equipment absorbing damage to the structure. When a critical hit is rolled, the mech still takes structure damage and then it takes additional critical damage to equipment inside the component.

Quote

But then again, you could just keep pushing engine durability up until you got to a point where 'Mechs don't die in seconds.

This requires a play test to see for sure; but I cant see a reason why values couldn't be adjusted to mitigate results.

Engine durability would only need to be increased by so much though really, because if the engine is so tough that it's never critically destroyed before the torso is lost then what's the point of even having a true engine crit system? I do agree that engines shouldn't be critically destroyed in a matter of seconds (barring focus fire and/or crit seeking weapons) but engines would need to not be super incredibly tough or it'd be a little silly.

Quote

That is part of the thinking. So many people out there are completely against making MWO further from TT.

So... I give a fully TT-based suggestion and it'll "soft nerf" Clans.

Since the goal is to bring more equality and viability to all engine choices (Clan or IS) and there is so much resistance to the "easy fix" method (even though it would absolutely only improve gameplay) because it will buff IS out of lore levels, make them too OP like Clans should be, powercreep, and all that hogwash; this suggestion will effect a similar result by decreasing power of cXL.

I mean...that's fine with me, but considering the current system we have now I don't think it's really needed either.

Quote

Depends on how you look at it.

The only reason that IS can stand against Clans (even with Clantech toned down as it is) is Quirks.

And Quirks are bandaids that don't address the root problem. They just seek to cover it up.

Take away those Quirks and what do you have?

And fairness isn't the only part that's important.

Quirks present other problems in their current (mis)use. There is nothing special about a Quirk, really. Lots of 'Mechs share the same basic Quirks. So they're not really quirks at all, they're just generic buffs with a different name.

And the fact that they have to keep being addressed is wasteful of developer time.

Finally, the fact that this topic is brought up over and over again by strong proponents and casuals alike, shows that there is indeed something that smacks of unfairness in the current system.

Justly speaking, no amount of compensatory Quirks on the inferior side (isXL) or penalties on the superior side (cXL) makes up for that sudden death on ST loss that isXL experiences. It's the most core problem of the techlines imbalances that people keep discussing and it and the Quirks that follow from it muddies the waters in discussions about other balance issues.

That's a much broader issue though.

[Mcgral18]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 March 2016 - 12:25 AM, said:

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)

Gauss just has less HP.

Engine at 6-12 slots has 15 HP, blanket, between those slots.

Gauss has 5 HP for its 6-7 slots.


Nothing special, other than being destroyed by half the damage of your typical item, while also being larger. AC20 has 18 HP, but dies very quickly nonetheless, at 10 slots (same as the cXL)

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mcgral18, on 16 March 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:

Gauss just has less HP.

Engine at 6-12 slots has 15 HP, blanket, between those slots.

Gauss has 5 HP for its 6-7 slots.

Nothing special, other than being destroyed by half the damage of your typical item, while also being larger. AC20 has 18 HP, but dies very quickly nonetheless, at 10 slots (same as the cXL)

I swear I read that Gauss has a higher chance to be critically hit, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'm sure there is a way to make it invulnerable/less vulnerable to critical hits.

At least, giving each engine crit its own health would make it much more durable.

Pjwned, on 16 March 2016 - 08:17 PM, said:

That's not how critical hits work though, you don't have equipment absorbing damage to the structure. When a critical hit is rolled, the mech still takes structure damage and then it takes additional critical damage to equipment inside the component.

Ok, then perhaps starting with doubling structure values on all 'Mechs (like they did with armor) could provide a solid base for the 3-crit rule method.

There's always a way to mitigate effects and usually not a complex one.

Pjwned, on 16 March 2016 - 08:17 PM, said:

Engine durability would only need to be increased by so much though really, because if the engine is so tough that it's never critically destroyed before the torso is lost then what's the point of even having a true engine crit system? I do agree that engines shouldn't be critically destroyed in a matter of seconds (barring focus fire and/or crit seeking weapons) but engines would need to not be super incredibly tough or it'd be a little silly.

Yup, I agree.

Values would have to be determined and tweaked. But as long as they are normally applied, then its all good because its all fair.

Pjwned, on 16 March 2016 - 08:17 PM, said:

I mean...that's fine with me, but considering the current system we have now I don't think it's really needed either.

That's a much broader issue though.

Those broader issues are impossible to disentangle from the durability disparity. That's a major reason why we need to change this very core imbalance.

PGI should playtest isXL ST survivability.

Let's see how it goes. People might be surprised how much and how little the game changes.

[Hit the Deck]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 March 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

I swear I read that Gauss has a higher chance to be critically hit, but I could be wrong.
...

Perhaps you are confusing it with Gauss having 90% chance to explode when destroyed, combined with low HP.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Hit the Deck, on 17 March 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

Perhaps you are confusing it with Gauss having 90% chance to explode when destroyed, combined with low HP.

Saw that on Smurfy's. Not that. Anyway, nevermind. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[Lugh]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 March 2016 - 06:05 PM, said:

That's true. So, implementing the 3-crit rule is a compromise.

It's not my favorite solution. I'm strongly in favor of isXL surviving ST loss. I think that is the best and fairest solution.

But, the 3-crit rule has more possible situations where cXL can die earlier. This isn't really a buff to isXL so much as it is a change in mechanics and a soft nerf to cXL



You're right, meaningful engine choice is currently nil for Clans and a combo of two inferior choices for IS.

Any change needs to be implemented with planning, caution and fairness of application.

Making Std. engines viable is also a major reason why I want this change!

No it isn't. the rules clearly state 3 Crits to engine. You should be counting your blessings that the PGI crit system sucks and the CT isn't critted out sooner on their system as the internals for CT are exposed and you go deep red before dying when there is nothing but Engine in the CT.

[Duke Nedo]

If I may attempt a summary of the engine problem...

• An XL engine saves a lot of tonnage compared to a STD engine. 8.0 tons for a 280XL, 9.5 tons for a 300XL, 14.5 tons for a 350XL. To put that in perspective, the Summoner has 5 tons locked away in JJs.
  
• For the clan XL you get this benefit relatively speaking without any trade-off. Relatively as in ISXL dies on a ST loss while cXL does not. This is a black-or-white difference that is the root of the difficulties balancing XLs.
  
• Now because of this, cXL is superior to ISXL, ISSTD and cSTD.
  
• The easiest solution would normally be to nerf the cXL, but since clan Omnis have locked cXL engines that would be really harsh to do so now. Some Omnis would have been deathtrap POS mechs with ST death. The MDD would be like a XL stalker... so, we have to do something else.
  
• The next easiest solution would be to buff ISXL, ISSTD and cSTD up to the level of cXL. This is what many would like to do.
  
• What PGI opted to do was to instead give ST structure quirks to an array of IS mechs, trying to find the sweet value where the extra ST HP offsets the instant death on ST loss. This magic number will be different for every chassi and also different for different playstyles, game modes etc. This also maintains the black-or-white character of the ISXL, either you survive without losing that ST, or you die. There is no in between which makes that magic number really hard to pin down for every bloody mech.
  
• EDIT: This leaves the cSTD engine way behind cXL. No quirks for clan mechs with STD engines (had anyone decided to use one), while ISXL and ISSTD users both gets the benefits of quirks (as long as you are in a blessed variant).
  
• To make things more difficult, there are also agility quirks and offensive quirks that are balanced versus weapons/equipment tech base stats imbalance.

Now, I am not saying everything should be the same, but I think PGI would make it a hell of a lot easier for themselves if they would equalize the engines (which is the biggest culprit here), do some more minor tweaks on the weapon and equipment stats (see Mcgraals old thread for example) and then use Quirks solely for buffing variants with poor hardpoints and/or geometry.




That's my shortest version. It's just an unnecessarily convoluted mess, and as such there is bound to be outliers on both sides that are poorly balanced. It could be different.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 17 March 2016 - 04:43 AM.

[Pjwned]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 March 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

Ok, then perhaps starting with doubling structure values on all 'Mechs (like they did with armor) could provide a solid base for the 3-crit rule method.

There's always a way to mitigate effects and usually not a complex one.

That creates other problems though, such as light & medium mechs getting the shaft again with their lower gains while heavy & assault mechs gain a lot, so that's not something to just casually implement and I definitely don't agree with doing that.

Also, structure was doubled as well as armor at the time.

Quote

Those broader issues are impossible to disentangle from the durability disparity. That's a major reason why we need to change this very core imbalance.

PGI should playtest isXL ST survivability.

Let's see how it goes. People might be surprised how much and how little the game changes.

I don't think PGI should even test that, it would create other major problems that the LFE would avoid so instead we should just have the LFE implemented.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 17 March 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

I don't think PGI should even test that, it would create other major problems that the LFE would avoid so instead we should just have the LFE implemented.

The LFE as is has its own problems, in that it doesn't fix the main problem of the engine balance discussion, it is just another bandaid. In fact it just means I would use the STD engine even less than I already do.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 11:50 AM.

[Homeskilit]

Duke Nedo, on 17 March 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

What PGI opted to do was to instead give ST structure quirks to an array of IS mechs, trying to find the sweet value where the extra ST HP offsets the instant death on ST loss. This magic number will be different for every chassi and also different for different playstyles, game modes etc. This also maintains the black-or-white character of the ISXL, either you survive without losing that ST, or you die. There is no in between which makes that magic number really hard to pin down for every bloody mech.

Also, not every mech has received torso structure quirks.

What we really want is the isXL reduced to 10 critical slots, right? Isn't that the only fundamental difference between the cXL and the isXL?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 17 March 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

Also, not every mech has received torso structure quirks.

What we really want is the isXL reduced to 10 critical slots, right? Isn't that the only fundamental difference between the cXL and the isXL?

That's not what is being asked, what is being asked is that the number of crits necessary for death be ignored (to a degree) or for all intents and purposes be stretched to 4.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2016 - 12:29 PM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

The LFE as is has its own problems, in that it doesn't fix the main problem of the engine balance discussion, it is just another bandaid.

The problem seems to be that IS mechs don't get a 10-slot XL engine and LFE addresses that perfectly, so actually yes it does fix things and no it isn't a band aid fix, meanwhile the irony is that buffing IS XL engine survivability is the biggest band aid fix possible.

Quote

In fact it just means I would use the STD engine even less than I already do.

That doesn't mean STD engines would be less viable. 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, doesn't mean it's no longer a decent option which is all it needs to be.

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, so it's a band aid fix and then another band aid fix on top of that.