106 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

Seems legit, I'd say go for it.

On a side note:
The LFE should suffer similar penalties like the Clan XL when a side torso is lost. Part of an engine gone is still part of an engine gone. The exact severity of the penalties would need to be sorted out.

[cazidin]

Since PGI won't introduce new technology and the LFE is a poor man's C-XL engine here's a bold new proposal that will shock everyone.

Make IS-XL survive a single ST destruction with a 20-30% penalty like C-XL has now.

[Gyrok]

kapusta11, on 12 April 2016 - 04:14 AM, said:

I think that little </s> meant sarcasm. LFE would obsolete STD engines and in some cases make it more preferable compared to XL engine. You can build a Banshee with LFE380, 3x LPL, 5x ML and 21 DHS or a BK with the same loadout except for LFE325 and 19 DHS or Quad UAC5 Mauler with LFE325 and 9t of ammo.

However, a banshee with 3 AC5s in the LT cannot be built with LFE.

cazidin, on 12 April 2016 - 07:10 AM, said:

Since PGI won't introduce new technology and the LFE is a poor man's C-XL engine here's a bold new proposal that will shock everyone.

Make IS-XL survive a single ST destruction with a 20-30% penalty like C-XL has now.

How about no

[Metus regem]

MeiSooHaityu, on 12 April 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

Seems legit, I'd say go for it.

On a side note:
The LFE should suffer similar penalties like the Clan XL when a side torso is lost. Part of an engine gone is still part of an engine gone. The exact severity of the penalties would need to be sorted out.

I figured that was a given, that it would suffer the same effects as the cXL, both function in the same way, just the cXL saves more weight.

[MeiSooHaityu]

If the LFE engine also suffered performance loss and heat efficiency loss (similar to the C-XL), and the STD enge does not, that would be another reason to carry a STD engine vs a LFE in some builds.

It basically would make torso shielding less than optimal if you knew your mech would become more sluggish and hot with a side torso gone. Also, like many said, some builds (like my 3 A/C5 Marauder) wouldn't be possible with an LFE.

Since an LFE is supposed to be inferior to the Clan XL, just make those torso loss penalties a bit more severe than the clan equivalent XL.

It would make the LFE more optimal for CT hitbox heavy mechs, or mechs willing to risk better initial performance at the cost of late game wounded performance. STD engine would still be good for shield side mechs and more friendly to Endo or Ferro when it came to utilizing every crit slot you can.

[cazidin]

Gyrok, on 12 April 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

How about no

How about yes!

[Bishop Steiner]

Lugh, on 12 April 2016 - 05:44 AM, said:

There will be no reason to run clan mechs ever again should this be done.

IS Uber alles.

Or,..........

*gasp*

There would be because not every mech is laservomit that needs minimal tonnage for guns.

And of course, shocker, quirks would end up in a rebalance (which they are getting in a couple months anyhow)

It's not like balance is, or has been static all this time. It's only last few months the IS had had the power, after a year and a half of clan OP.

Cause LFE is still inferior to clan xl.

[Hit the Deck]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

I guarantee it is solvable, they just don't see it as worth the time to work on it since it may involve refactoring a sizeable amount of their existing code (which can be painful).

Or perhaps the reason isn't technical.

cazidin, on 12 April 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

How about yes!

How about you read the OP since I've mentioned it?

[Metus regem]

MeiSooHaityu, on 12 April 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

If the LFE engine also suffered performance loss and heat efficiency loss (similar to the C-XL), and the STD enge does not, that would be another reason to carry a STD engine vs a LFE in some builds.

It basically would make torso shielding less than optimal if you knew your mech would become more sluggish and hot with a side torso gone. Also, like many said, some builds (like my 3 A/C5 Marauder) wouldn't be possible with an LFE.

Since an LFE is supposed to be inferior to the Clan XL, just make those torso loss penalties a bit more severe than the clan equivalent XL.

It would make the LFE more optimal for CT hitbox heavy mechs, or mechs willing to risk better initial performance at the cost of late game wounded performance. STD engine would still be good for shield side mechs and more friendly to Endo or Ferro when it came to utilizing every crit slot you can.

The LFE is already inferior to the cXL, due to weight savings, the cXL saves 50% weight of a Standard Engine, while the LFE saves 25% weight of a Standard Engine. If one were to make the lose of ST penalties more severe for the LFE over the cXL it would just drive the already inferior LFE even further behind the cXL.

As it stands, a Standard engine is the gold standard for survivablity, the rest fall in this order of survivablity:

Standard
cXL
LFE
IS-XL
cXXL
IS-XXL

In terms of weight savings:

XXL
XL
LFE
Standard


As we can see, no mater how you slice it, the LFE is always inferior to the cXL, punishing it more for losing the same engine crits would be pointless.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

Or perhaps the reason isn't technical.

Wat

That was for the sub-conversation about crit splitting, nothing to do with LFEs. The reason we don't have crit splitting is definitely technical.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 April 2016 - 07:49 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

Wat

That was for the sub-conversation about crit splitting, nothing to do with LFEs. The reason we don't have crit splitting is definitely technical.

Did they explicitly say that? Could it be that they don't like crit splitting?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Metus regem, on 12 April 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

...the LFE is always inferior to the cXL, punishing it more for losing the same engine crits would be pointless.

It just needs some sort of torso loss penalty to differentiate it from a STD engine IMO. Severity of those penalties can be as severe or light as needed.

If there were no penalty at all, then an LFE would be a lighter STD engine with only a bit of a C-Bill premium. Effectively they would accomplish the same in the durability department, but the LFE would just do it lighter.

Yes a STD engine can survive 2 torso losses vs a LFE's one torso loss, However like I have said in every thread or post when someone complains about clanners not having their own STD engines....

IS mounts a STD engine to survive one torso loss. No one equips a STD engine to become a weaponless (or one head laser) CT crit stick.

In that sense, a LFE and a STD engine accomplish the same goal in the durability department. Survive that one torso loss.

So I feel a LFE needs a bit of a penalty for a side torso loss to add greater differentiation between STD and LFEs. Maybe penalties shouldn't be worse than what the clanners suffer, but I believe it has to be something.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 07:54 AM, said:

Did they explicitly say that? Could it be that they don't like crit splitting?

Could be, the AC20 arm thing is an interesting touch, but crit splitting is most likely a technical issue regardless.

It also means should we ever get Heavy Gauss Rifles, they will only be mountable on STD engine mechs which is rather unfortunate, and limits what variants we would even get with them, since iirc quite a few run LFEs and Heavy Gauss.

[cazidin]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

How about you read the OP since I've mentioned it?

That's a bit rude, isn't it? Though I suppose I might've come across rudely too, and for that I apologize. The problems with your suggestion are simply that PGI will not introduce new technology, at least, not yet and that LFEs are essentially a heavier Clan XL engine, which I feel is redundant.

Yes, making XL survive a side torso loss would obsolete the standard engine on most mechs. You would either have to accept this as a consequence of buffing IS-XL engines, make the penalty for losing a side torso worse than for Clan XLs which might make this change pointless or buff standard engines somehow. Possibly by tying agility quirks to the engine itself.

[Hit the Deck]

cazidin, on 12 April 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

That's a bit rude, isn't it? Though I suppose I might've come across rudely too, and for that I apologize. The problems with your suggestion are simply that PGI will not introduce new technology, at least, not yet and that LFEs are essentially a heavier Clan XL engine, which I feel is redundant.
...

I didn't mention it in the OP but I didn't ask PGI to add LFE now. It was more of a response to an argument pro to the "XL engine normalization" which says that LFE shouldn't be added because it would be redundant after the XL normalization.

[Gyrok]

cazidin, on 12 April 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

That's a bit rude, isn't it? Though I suppose I might've come across rudely too, and for that I apologize. The problems with your suggestion are simply that PGI will not introduce new technology, at least, not yet and that LFEs are essentially a heavier Clan XL engine, which I feel is redundant.

Yes, making XL survive a side torso loss would obsolete the standard engine on most mechs. You would either have to accept this as a consequence of buffing IS-XL engines, make the penalty for losing a side torso worse than for Clan XLs which might make this change pointless or buff standard engines somehow. Possibly by tying agility quirks to the engine itself.

Because there could not possibly be any other way to make IS and Clan TTK at about the same level without making XL engines into carbon copies...

[Metus regem]

MeiSooHaityu, on 12 April 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

It just needs some sort of torso loss penalty to differentiate it from a STD engine IMO. Severity of those penalties can be as severe or light as needed.

If there were no penalty at all, then an LFE would be a lighter STD engine with only a bit of a C-Bill premium. Effectively they would accomplish the same in the durability department, but the LFE would just do it lighter.

Yes a STD engine can survive 2 torso losses vs a LFE's one torso loss, However like I have said in every thread or post when someone complains about clanners not having their own STD engines....

IS mounts a STD engine to survive one torso loss. No one equips a STD engine to become a weaponless (or one head laser) CT crit stick.

In that sense, a LFE and a STD engine accomplish the same goal in the durability department. Survive that one torso loss.

So I feel a LFE needs a bit of a penalty for a side torso loss to add greater differentiation between STD and LFEs. Maybe penalties shouldn't be worse than what the clanners suffer, but I believe it has to be something.

I'm not saying no penalties, I'm saying the same penalties as the cXL. The Standard is the only engine that shouldn't see any penalties until it starts taking damage (not something that will happen anytime soon in MWO). The Standard gets that benefit at the cost of weight, the LFE/cXL should get the same penalties as they both lose the same amount of engine crits when a ST blows out.

I think we are both saying the same thing, the LFE would not be with out a down side, I'm just saying that giving it a higher set of penalties than the cXL would be punishing an engine that is already inferior would be silly.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 12 April 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

The LFE is already inferior to the cXL, due to weight savings, the cXL saves 50% weight of a Standard Engine, while the LFE saves 25% weight of a Standard Engine. If one were to make the lose of ST penalties more severe for the LFE over the cXL it would just drive the already inferior LFE even further behind the cXL.

As it stands, a Standard engine is the gold standard for survivablity, the rest fall in this order of survivablity:

Standard
cXL
LFE
IS-XL
cXXL
IS-XXL

In terms of weight savings:

XXL
XL
LFE
Standard


As we can see, no mater how you slice it, the LFE is always inferior to the cXL, punishing it more for losing the same engine crits would be pointless.

It should get penalties to lose an ST though, or if really will functionally obsolete the STD. Just make them like, half the penalties of the C-XL.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

It should get penalties to lose an ST though, or if really will functionally obsolete the STD. Just make them like, half the penalties of the C-XL.

I said:

Metus regem, on 12 April 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

As we can see, no mater how you slice it, the LFE is always inferior to the cXL, punishing it more for losing the same engine crits would be pointless.

I'm all for the same penalties as the cXL, not higher penalties due to it being IS tech. It's already inferior to the cXL due to the weight difference, no need to punish it more than the cXL.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 12 April 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

I said:




I'm all for the same penalties as the cXL, not higher penalties due to it being IS tech. It's already inferior to the cXL due to the weight difference, no need to punish it more than the cXL.

I feel punishing it equally is wrong, since it's still inferior to the cXL