220 replies to this topic

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gyrok, on 20 March 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

Sure...however...MWO is not structured to function like that.

If we go by component destruction...there is no way beyond what we have.

That will also not change any time soon ever...

You're right, MWO isn't structured like that, but it could be. That's just a design decision.

I'm not saying that we need the 3-crit rule; we don't need TT rules or values for MWO.

But the system we have now lacks the flexibility that the 3-crit rule had and thus produces in an unacceptable result that needs compensating.

I'm strongly in favor of making isXL survive ST loss because it returns the game to a more evenhanded state where engines function more as intended (that is, more similarly).

Moreover, it solves a number of other problems: reduces/removes the need for durability Quirks, precludes the development time needed for other solutions and, when combined with a moderate buff to Std. engines, largely solves meaningful choice problems for both IS and Clans.

From a developer and business standpoint, it's really a no brainer; it's simple, quick and highly effective.

[Homeskilit]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 March 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

@Yeonne Greene:

Your posts continue to become more and more inflammatory. In order to maintain my stated adherence to the impersonal, I can no longer engage with you.

Haha Right?

This is all I needed to know

Yeonne Greene, on 20 March 2016 - 02:06 AM, said:

But no, I haven't. I was too busy learning everything about video-games and systems engineering to get concussed a few too many times knocking a ball around a court.

[Gyrok]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 March 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

You're right, MWO isn't structured like that, but it could be. That's just a design decision.

I'm not saying that we need the 3-crit rule; we don't need TT rules or values for MWO.

But the system we have now lacks the flexibility that the 3-crit rule had and thus produces in an unacceptable result that needs compensating.

I'm strongly in favor of making isXL survive ST loss because it returns the game to a more evenhanded state where engines function more as intended (that is, more similarly).

Moreover, it solves a number of other problems: reduces/removes the need for durability Quirks, precludes the development time needed for other solutions and, when combined with a moderate buff to Std. engines, largely solves meaningful choice problems for both IS and Clans.

From a developer and business standpoint, it's really a no brainer; it's simple, quick and highly effective.

As a designer in favor of asymmetric balance in this case...it makes zero sense.

Why remove "flavor" by making things boringly the same.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gyrok, on 20 March 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

As a designer in favor of asymmetric balance in this case...it makes zero sense.

It make sense, it's just not your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone.

But don't preface it with a claim of expertise from beyond the veil of anonymity. I don't know you or what you do, you don't know me or what I do. Doesn't matter, our opinions are both equally valuable as opinions go.

Gyrok, on 20 March 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

Why remove "flavor" by making things boringly the same.

There's a lot of ways to preserve flavor. isXL dying on ST loss isn't the best way.

On the contrary, it is pushing the homogenization of other aspects of the game by requiring compensatory Quirks (durability Quirks foremost, but weapon Quirks to a lesser extent).

If you have a solid baseline balance, it's much easier to adjust values for things like weapons and other equipment while maintaining that balance and further contrasting their "flavors".

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 20 March 2016 - 06:49 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Just ganna leave this here form a topic i came up with a wail ago,

Andi Nagasia, on 03 December 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

So looking at Various Engines & Equipment i had an Idea,
what if we Gave Certain Engines Bonuses to Help with their Use,
helping Both Sub250 Engines STD Engines IS-XLs and Even CASE,
(this idea is based on the Clan Targeting Computers & Quriks they give)


=First= Sub250 Engines=
the First 10DHS stored in the Engine have 0.2 Heat Displacement,
However Engines under 250 Rating Store less than 10HS in the Engine,
so Mechs with Ratings 100-245 lose out on some Heat Displacement,
-
So My Idea is to give All those Engines Quirks that will Compensate,
=IS 200STD Engine=

-<Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_Std_200" id="3238">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\StdEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_Standard_Fusion_200_desc" nameTag="@Engine_Standard_Fusion_200"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="8" weight="11.5" rating="200" sidesToDie="0" sideSlots="0" slots="6"/>
<If (heatsinks<"10") MechStats Cooling="(10-heatsinks) *0.6"/>
</Module>

this Means is if you have a 200Engine, your Mech will gain 0.12 Bonus Cooling,
(DHS in Engine has 0.2Cooling, DHS outside have 0.14, so Bonus 0.06 x2),
i beleve this would solve the PoorDubs Problem in Sub250 Engines,


=Next= STD Engines=
with IIC mechs coming out Many wonder how PGI will Balance C-XL Engines,
so thinking on this i came up with a solution to Buff All(IS&Clan) STD Engines,
Wail also not Increasing their Mobility or Decreasing their Weight,
-
So give All STD Equipped Mechs CT Internal Structure Bonuses,
=IS 250STD Engine=

-<Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_Std_250" id="3248">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\StdEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_Standard_Fusion_250_desc" nameTag="@Engine_Standard_Fusion_250"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="10" weight="18.5" rating="250" sidesToDie="0" sideSlots="0" slots="6"/>
<MechStats AddStructure(CT)="16"/>
</Module>

this Means All STD Engines, Will have a +16CT Internal Structure Bonus,
i beleave this would Help Give C-STD Engines a Distinct Advantage over C-XLs,
as well as Give IS-STD Engines more Survivability that what they have Currently,


=Then= IS-XL Engines=
with IS mechs their is a term, XL-Friendly, meaning They are good with XLs,
this usually means these Mechs have Hitboxes that make Protecting Sides easier,
so with this i came up with a solution to Buff IS XLs, Not C-XLs as per Balance,
-
So give All XL Equipped Mechs Internal Structure Bonuses,
=IS 250STD Engine=

-<Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_XL_250" id="3348">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_250_desc" nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_250"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="10" weight="12.5" rating="250" sidesToDie="1" sideSlots="3" slots="6"/>
<MechStats AddStructure(LT)="8"/>
<MechStats AddStructure(RT)="8"/>
</Module>

this Means All XL Engines, Will have a +8ST Internal Structure Bonus,
i believe this Change would Help Make more IS Mechs XL Friendly,
and also give a good Counter to the STD Buff Above this,


=Finally= CASE(IS)=
At this Time there's not much Reason to take 0.5Ton CASE,
Yes, it stops Ammo Explosion Damage Transfer From ST to CT,
other than that if you need Tonnage its almost Always the First thing to go,
-
So why not give Case its Own Internal Structure Bonuses as well,
=IS CASE=

-<Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CCASEStats" name="CASE" id="9003">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\CASE.dds" descTag="@CASE_desc" nameTag="@CASE"/>
<ModuleStats health="0" tons="0.5" slots="1" amountAllowed="1" components="right_torso, left_torso"/>
<If (left_torso) MechStats AddStructure(LT)="6"/>
<If (right_torso) MechStats AddStructure(RT)="6"/>
</Module>

this Means CASE will Give you a +6Internal Structure to the Side its placed in,
Giving CASE new Life as a XL Buffer, and to Aid in making Mechs Tankier,
as well as Doing its Original Purpose of Stopping Damage Transfer,


=CODE=
All XML Code was Scripted By Me(Andi Nagasia),
And based on other XML Code(TC1 CASE STD200 DHS Ect)
Please Remember that all Coding Stats Can Change for Balance
Special Thanks to Mcgral for the Initial XML Code

Full Topic HERE

there you go Asymmetrical Balance,
Sub250 Engines gain their TrueDubs, helping Stuck Lights,
STDs have a Purpose and a use out side of Zombe'ing,
and IS/Clan XLs have a Balance that can be Tweaked,
Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 20 March 2016 - 09:24 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Andi Nagasia, on 20 March 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Just ganna leave this here form a topic i came up with a wail ago,

I like what you did here but +8 structure to ST is not enough. If a cXL equipped mech must lose 2 ST to be destroyed, then isXL equipped mechs must lose 2 ST to be destroyed.

Now if you want that to be 1 ST instead of 2 for IS mechs then that 1 ST must have the equivalent HP of 2 STs.

Which makes it a bit more tricky then a flat number. The structure buff would need to scale according to engine and/or mech size.

Edited by Homeskilit, 20 March 2016 - 09:33 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Andi Nagasia, on 20 March 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Just ganna leave this here form a topic i came up with a wail ago,

....

Full Topic HERE

there you go Asymmetrical Balance,
Sub250 Engines gain their TrueDubs, helping Stuck Lights,
STDs have a Purpose and a use out side of Zombe'ing,
and IS/Clan XLs have a Balance that can be Tweaked,
Edit- Spelling

Unfortunately, this doesn't really address the problem at all. As far durability goes, it just reassigns Quirks and leaves the underlying problem as is.

We're still left in the same place where isXL needs further compensation.

As for heat, that's another problem entirely.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Homeskilit, on 20 March 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

I like what you did here but +8 structure to ST is not enough. If a cXL equipped mech must lose 2 ST to be destroyed, then isXL equipped mechs must lose 2 ST to be destroyed.

Now if you want that to be 1 ST instead of 2 for IS mechs then that 1 ST must have the equivalent HP of 2 STs.

Which makes it a bit more tricky then a flat number. The structure buff would need to scale according to engine and/or mech size.

And in the case that you did make 1 IS 'Mech ST equal in durability to 2 Clan 'Mech STs (or close to), you wouldn't really have created balance at all, you'd've created two-way imbalance.

[Homeskilit]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 March 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

And in the case that you did make 1 IS 'Mech ST equal in durability to 2 Clan 'Mech STs (or close to), you wouldn't really have created balance at all, you'd've created two-way imbalance.

I do not think it is the best idea either.

I would personally rather have isXl = cXL straight up. Give a buff to STD engines to make them a worthy choice (+ CT structure being the leading choice atm). And wipe quirks clean and start again.

Baring that, I think massive structure quirks to isXL STs such that they equal 2 ST is the next best choice.

Edited by Homeskilit, 20 March 2016 - 10:20 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Homeskilit, on 20 March 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

I do not think it is the best idea either.

I would personally rather have isXl = cXL straight up. Give a buff to STD engines to make them a worthy choice (+ CT structure being the leading choice atm). And wipe quirks clean and start again.

Baring that, I think massive structure quirks to isXL STs such that they equal 2 ST is the next best choice.

It could be done that way, I'm just afraid that this solution pushes us further in the direction that we've been going already. That is, massive Quirks/buffs that reinforce the cycle of powercreep.

As a 2nd choice I favor engine crits and the 3-crit rule; especially for it's flexibility and the compromise it promises in that it doesn't change isXL dying on ST loss or that cXL won't, yet the circumstances of destruction are subtly changed in the direction of more equality and similarity of function.

[Homeskilit]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 March 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

It could be done that way, I'm just afraid that this solution pushes us further in the direction that we've been going already. That is, massive Quirks/buffs that reinforce the cycle of powercreep.

As a 2nd choice I favor engine crits and the 3-crit rule; especially for it's flexibility and the compromise it promises in that it doesn't change isXL dying on ST loss or that cXL won't, yet the circumstances of destruction are subtly changed in the direction of more equality and similarity of function.

Say NO to power creep!

Lol, that said, the 3 crit idea won't work unless isXL have their ST crits reduced to 2 so that the XLs are equal.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Homeskilit, on 20 March 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:

Say NO to power creep!

Lol, that said, the 3 crit idea won't work unless isXL have their ST crits reduced to 2 so that the XLs are equal.

I would be ok with that! But try selling it to the lore-mongers among us!

Even if they left isXL with 3 crits in the ST, they could surely do something to make sure: 1) ST doesn't get destroyed if it still has an engine crit in it, and 2) that engine crits are substantially durable.

[Gyrok]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 March 2016 - 11:12 PM, said:

I would be ok with that! But try selling it to the lore-mongers among us!

Even if they left isXL with 3 crits in the ST, they could surely do something to make sure: 1) ST doesn't get destroyed if it still has an engine crit in it, and 2) that engine crits are substantially durable.

Look...

Engine crits will never make it into this game. The design system to trigger specific events after a specific number of engine crits would be insanely more complex than any other system in the game currently.

As for a veil of anonymity...whatever...use that to obfuscate your lack of expertise. I *am* a designer, and I am telling you that what you want is a pipe dream. Stop chasing it...and quit chasing the dragon while you are at it.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gyrok, on 21 March 2016 - 06:00 AM, said:

Look...

Engine crits will never make it into this game. The design system to trigger specific events after a specific number of engine crits would be insanely more complex than any other system in the game currently.

As for a veil of anonymity...whatever...use that to obfuscate your lack of expertise. I *am* a designer, and I am telling you that what you want is a pipe dream. Stop chasing it...and quit chasing the dragon while you are at it.

Look...

First, I said I wanted isXL to survive ST destruction.

Second, engine crits may never make it into the game. That's fine with me. But it won't be for the reason that they are too complex. It would be hardly any more complex than the system we have now!

Third, you may be a designer. I have no way of verifying that, nor do I ask you to prove it. You can try to "Wow!" me with your expertise. I will not try to do that with whatever expertise I may or may not have.

As I said, you have no idea who I am or what I do.

Finally, I hope that snipe about drug use was a joke, if not it's tantamount to libel.

Tread carefully.

[Pjwned]

Gyrok, on 21 March 2016 - 06:00 AM, said:

Look...

Engine crits will never make it into this game. The design system to trigger specific events after a specific number of engine crits would be insanely more complex than any other system in the game currently.

As for a veil of anonymity...whatever...use that to obfuscate your lack of expertise. I *am* a designer, and I am telling you that what you want is a pipe dream. Stop chasing it...and quit chasing the dragon while you are at it.

I'm not exactly pushing for proper engine crits (though I wouldn't be against them), but I'm really not seeing how they would be so much more complex than everything else in the game, unless you're saying that everything else is very simple in comparison. How would it be so hard to check how many engine slots are destroyed on the mech and apply penalties/mech destruction accordingly? I guess for PGI it probably would be hard since they are hacks, which is the much more likely reason proper engine crits won't happen, but really I can't see how that's such a complex system.

Not throwing out accusations (yet) but it could be you're being defensive because proper engine crits would arguably affect Clans more.

[Johnny Z]

Homeskilit, on 20 March 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

I like what you did here but +8 structure to ST is not enough. If a cXL equipped mech must lose 2 ST to be destroyed, then isXL equipped mechs must lose 2 ST to be destroyed.

Now if you want that to be 1 ST instead of 2 for IS mechs then that 1 ST must have the equivalent HP of 2 STs.

Which makes it a bit more tricky then a flat number. The structure buff would need to scale according to engine and/or mech size.

Not a bad idea and a new one.

[Gyrok]

Pjwned, on 22 March 2016 - 04:37 AM, said:

I'm not exactly pushing for proper engine crits (though I wouldn't be against them), but I'm really not seeing how they would be so much more complex than everything else in the game, unless you're saying that everything else is very simple in comparison. How would it be so hard to check how many engine slots are destroyed on the mech and apply penalties/mech destruction accordingly? I guess for PGI it probably would be hard since they are hacks, which is the much more likely reason proper engine crits won't happen, but really I can't see how that's such a complex system.

Not throwing out accusations (yet) but it could be you're being defensive because proper engine crits would arguably affect Clans more.

The reality is, in game, if something gets crit, it is destroyed...simple. You have a 1/0 check.

Is component destroyed? 0 (No)

Then, is item destroyed? 1 (Yes)

Play "Side Torso Critical, ERLL Destroyed"

Now, if you start trying to track engine crits...you add about 500, or more, lines of code to that simple system for the sake of making 1 guy on the forums happy. This could cause issues with other parts of the critical system that may lead to recurring issues for a while later. Especially if the implementation is hasty...(never happens with PGI...ever! )

Sorry...not going to happen. There are many other things I would prefer they spend 500+ lines of code on to implement.

Most of the stuff in game is not complex at all. The complexity in MWO comes from how many non-complex systems are interacting simultaneously.

Adding a very large and complex algorithm for tracking damage to a very specific set of internal components is going to play havoc upon the resources required for servers so we can make a neckbeard happy unnecessarily...

Edited by Gyrok, 22 March 2016 - 06:40 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

A new year is coming. The fragility of the isXL is something PGI needs to heavily consider to changing.

Quote

There's a lot of ways to preserve flavor. isXL dying on ST loss isn't the best way.

On the contrary, it is pushing the homogenization of other aspects of the game by requiring compensatory Quirks (durability Quirks foremost, but weapon Quirks to a lesser extent).

If you have a solid baseline balance, it's much easier to adjust values for things like weapons and other equipment while maintaining that balance and further contrasting their "flavors".

[RestosIII]

Tarl Cabot, on 31 December 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

A new year is coming. The fragility of the isXL is something PGI needs to heavily consider to changing.

Couldn't you have let this thread die, and stayed in this thread, aka a much more recent one? Or maybe this one?

Edited by RestosIII, 31 December 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

I have and done so, but then the longest thread about the isXL and cXL had to do with cXL dying to the loss of one side torso before the last series of posts got it locked. That got more people involved, both IS and Clan, leaning towards the idea that the isXL should be made durable like the cXL.

The threads, even though originally started with different methods have a common theme. With January coming up and PGI heading back into the offices, we cannot let this slide off the map.

And part of this thread has discussions about the use of engine crits, bringing forward issues with that method, removing one method of how to handle engine crits and that it may be better to use the KISS principle of the isXL surviving the loss of one side torso but with different penalty percentages that does not right out take out the mech.

But okay, I will not post anymore on this thread and let it die.