106 replies to this topic

[0bsidion]

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.

I believe the 'new technology' PGI is shying away from is mostly weapons, because there is obviously a lot more work involved in weapons than pretty much anything else, for modelers, GFX artists, and coders, whereas an LFE would mostly just be data entry with a bit of UI work. Of the two, the LFE would be easier to sell PGI on implementing.

[Gyrok]

0bsidion, on 12 April 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

I believe the 'new technology' PGI is shying away from is mostly weapons, because there is obviously a lot more work involved in weapons than pretty much anything else, for modelers, GFX artists, and coders, whereas an LFE would mostly just be data entry with a bit of UI work. Of the two, the LFE would be easier to sell PGI on implementing.

Modelers and graphic designers only have to worry about what a laser hardpoint looks like. Adding a new kind of laser does not change that dynamic hardpoint. Only the beam color...

[CK16]

My bad it was late didn't think about much, just that LFE's made one engine obsolete.

Eh, these would better added in future tech pack imo.

Also weren't LFE's kinda unstable? Prone to explosions appon destruction?

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

LFE wouldn't open many options outside mechs (specifically mediums) that run AC20s or dual UAC5s in the side torso, everything else will most likely still rely on structure quirks and XLs.

You're probably right, which is yet another reason why structure quirks should be removed.

Scout Derek, on 11 April 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

well, same rules should apply to them as clan xl engines, as well as possibly upping the penalty a bit since it is IS tech, and possibly decrease some penalties as well. maybe it can still dissipate just as good as it did before losign a ST or something along those lines.

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.

Just give it the same penalty as cXL engines.

CK16, on 11 April 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

Yea except adding these would totally invalidate IS XL engines...that is nothing something ok with new tech IMO is there should be reasons to use some of the old weapons...At least some of the others have trade offs, like tonnage, heat, range compared to existing, Light fusion engines just totally obsolete XL though and that is the large issue. Unless XL get a little added structure quirks if equipped or something.

Maybe they could make Light Fusion very prone to explosion kinda deal right? Very unstable? (Maybe BRIGHT LIGHT EXPLOSIONS? )

It wouldn't invalidate anything. If you want max weight savings then you use XL, if you want a middle ground then you use LFE, and if you want max durability then you use STD.

Khobai, on 11 April 2016 - 10:42 PM, said:

why?

PGI is incapable of balancing IS vs clan asymmetrically. They have continually failed at it for 2 years. And they actually made balance worse with the introduction of broken quirks... because time to kill hit all time lows.

You would rather have a perpetually unbalanced game than make a minor lore concession? That makes no sense.

The only hope this game has of ever being balanced at this point is to equalize the two tech bases. Making ISXL work identically to CXL is the absolute best thing they could do for game balance. Its what they did in the other mechwarrior games and it worked fine...

That doesn't mean the answer is to stray away from the correct path, the answer is for PGI to get off their *** and get some work done in the correct manner.

Opposing IS XL buffs is not just about being against "making a minor lore concession" either, it's about not wanting to encourage further power creep arms race garbage; power creep this and then power creep this and oh there's some problem here so we have to power creep this other thing too, etc.

Khobai, on 11 April 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

the game doesnt need the meta to get shook up.

what the game needs is a healthy self-correcting meta that doesnt rely on pgi to periodically shake things up by nerfing the meta in circles.

the game needs a meta with multiple playstyles that all counter eachother. instead of just everyone laser vomiting waiting for pgi to nerf lasers so the next weapon in line dominates the meta.

pgi needs to construct weapon balance with roles in mind. and those roles should deliberately counter eachother. like snipers should counter brawlers, strikers should counter snipers, brawlers should counter strikers, etc... that would insure that a mix of different weapons always gets used.

And something like that is easier to achieve if you dont also have to worry about asymmetrically balancing IS vs clan tech too.

Agreed mostly, except PGI shouldn't take the easy cop out method just because they're lazy, incompetent hacks; the proper answer is for them to get their **** together already and actually bother to do some aggressive balancing ever.

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

3062 year tech. Timeline nazі do not approve.

Then either move the timeline up or ignore it; timeline purists can be safely ignored entirely.

Quote

It would also make STD engines obsolete just like cXL did in case of clan BattleMechs. Quad UAC5 Mauler would be superior to 5x AC5 Mauler equiped with STD engine.

LFE wouldn't obsolete anything, and clan battlemechs shouldn't have existed in the first place so it doesn't really matter if their clan standard engines aren't as useful.

Quote

I'm not against it but you have to account for power creep it would create.

It wouldn't be power creep because it's already balanced.

[0bsidion]

CK16, on 12 April 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

My bad it was late didn't think about much, just that LFE's made one engine obsolete.

Eh, these would better added in future tech pack imo.

Also weren't LFE's kinda unstable? Prone to explosions appon destruction?

Not really. STDs will still have a place in builds that are limited in crit space and there are still people out there that can't afford XLs, (or LFEs if they were in the game), for their mechs. I know that might be hard to imagine for those that are rolling around in giant piles of cbills but it's true.

But yes, LFEs will be a tempting compromise between XLs and STDs. I don't see anything wrong with that personally.

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 12 April 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

My bad it was late didn't think about much, just that LFE's made one engine obsolete.

Eh, these would better added in future tech pack imo.

Also weren't LFE's kinda unstable? Prone to explosions appon destruction?

Not really, any engine that takes enough crits in a single round can have a catastrophic cascade effect causing damage to everything around it.

[Davers]

If they added LFE I would not look forward to spending a billion CB to update my mechs.

[SplashDown]

IS mechs are fine the way they are and imo IS should not get anything enhancing IS game play untill clan mechs get a buff to bring them back in line in the game

[Agent1190]

I made arguments for the LFE during the re-balance pass on the PTS last year.

I think one of the hurdles to introducing ANY technology is to not invalidate the existing technology in the game (referring to in-game tech, or course). LFEs would change the game - the Standard Engine would become superfluous - rarely used for specific loadouts (like the 3 AC5 Marauder or 5 AC5 Banshee). You remove the age-old mech lab question - do I take more weapons and potentially die quickly, or survive longer but with less firepower?

Another way to look at it: if the IS suddenly had access to the C-ER Small laser, would you still use the IS Medium Laser? Maybe, but a weapon with almost the same duration, same damage, better heat, 1/2 the tonnage at the expense of 70m of range... IS Medium Laser use would be SIGNIFICANTLY less, if not nil. If anything, it would be a weapon used when available tonnage is high and available crits are low.

That's what PGI would want to avoid if they introduced the LFE. So, how do you keep IS-Standard, IS-XL and IS-LFE unique and balanced?

I am in favor of introducing the LFE - I think as the time line progresses, we need to add more tech to the game. We haven't gotten ANYTHING new in YEARS (real-life years) that is available on all mechs (MASC doesn't count). LFEs would satisfy a LOT of the balance issues the game is experiencing, but the LFEs themselves need to be BALANCED if they are introduced (if anything, to avoid post-release nerfs or buffs that the community is so fond of).

Some questions I am SURE would come up:

• Do you re-distribute quirks on IS mechs when the LFE is released?
  
• Do you remove the ST-loss penalties from clans, or do you mirror them on IS mechs (and yes, it would be 20% - weight of the engine had nothing to do with that number, it was the number of engine crits - 2 out of 10 - that were lost when the ST is destroyed, therefore, 20% movement and cooling penalty)?
  
• How do you keep the IS-Standard Engine viable? Increase the ST crit slots on the LFE to match the XL?
  
• How does it affect the perceived "grind?" Most new IS mechs are released with Standard Engines, which means more game time to afford a LFE for that Mech. It brings up the "IS Endo and DHS tax" you pay on most IS Mechs - do we coin the phrase "LFE Tax?" Won't affect all players, of course, and eventually everyone will have a stable of LFE's like they do XL's now, but at release...
  
• Can you limit which mechs can run an LFE, like ECM and MASC now? How would that affect what Mechs we choose to keep/sell, the esport/competitive landscape, Faction Warfare Dropdecks, and of course, what if the LFE model had the worst hard points?
  
• Because it's newer technology, and not found in the age old Hunchback-4G, would you only release it in new Mechs (like a "Dragoon's Pack")? Would you make it fixed equipment to balance it? Would PGI add a variant to the existing Mechs - 3054 models - that had LFE's (they would refer to Sarna for models and hard points) for cash first/C-Bills a month later? Would that be P2W?

I don't have all these answers, and I am sure they would need to be answered prior to any new technology release.




Thoughts?

Edited by Agent1190, 12 April 2016 - 12:00 PM.

[cazidin]

0bsidion, on 12 April 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

I believe the 'new technology' PGI is shying away from is mostly weapons, because there is obviously a lot more work involved in weapons than pretty much anything else, for modelers, GFX artists, and coders, whereas an LFE would mostly just be data entry with a bit of UI work. Of the two, the LFE would be easier to sell PGI on implementing.

But why do we need it? PGI could just as easily make IS XL survive a side torso loss AND we'd get the benefit of roughly half weight engines rather than 3/4 weight engines. R.I.P Standard Engines.

[Metus regem]

Agent1190, on 12 April 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

I made arguments for the LFE during the re-balance pass on the PTS last year.

I think one of the hurdles to introducing ANY technology is to not invalidate the existing technology in the game (referring to in-game tech, or course). LFEs would change the game - the Standard Engine would become superfluous - rarely used for specific loadouts (like the 3 AC5 Marauder or 5 AC5 Banshee). You remove the age-old mech lab question - do I take more weapons and potentially die quickly, or survive longer but with less firepower?

Another way to look at it: if the IS suddenly had access to the C-ER Small laser, would you still use the IS Medium Laser? Maybe, but a weapon with almost the same duration, same damage, better heat, 1/2 the tonnage at the expense of 70m of range... IS Medium Laser use would be SIGNIFICANTLY less, if not nil. If anything, it would be a weapon used when available tonnage is high and available crits are low.

That's what PGI would want to avoid if they introduced the LFE. So, how do you keep IS-Standard, IS-XL and IS-LFE unique and balanced?

I am in favor of introducing the LFE - I think as the time line progresses, we need to add more tech to the game. We haven't gotten ANYTHING new in YEARS (real-life years) that is available on all mechs (MASC doesn't count). LFEs would satisfy a LOT of the balance issues the game is experiencing, but the LFEs themselves need to be BALANCED if they are introduced (if anything, to avoid post-release nerfs or buffs that the community is so fond of).

Some questions I am SURE would come up:

• Do you re-distribute quirks on IS mechs when the LFE is released?

Yes, quirks were partly introduced to help deal with the inherent imbalance between Clan tech and IS tech, the LFE would shorten that imbalance gap, not eliminate it entirely, but it would be an option towards that gap being closed.

Quote

• Do you remove the ST-loss penalties from clans, or do you mirror them on IS mechs (and yes, it would be 20% - weight of the engine had nothing to do with that number, it was the number of engine crits - 2 out of 10 - that were lost when the ST is destroyed, therefore, 20% movement and cooling penalty)?
  
• How do you keep the IS-Standard Engine viable? Increase the ST crit slots on the LFE to match the XL?

I'd treat the LFE like the cXL interms of penalties, both lose the same amount of crits when a ST blows out, both should give the same penalties.

Quote

• How does it affect the perceived "grind?" Most new IS mechs are released with Standard Engines, which means more game time to afford a LFE for that Mech. It brings up the "IS Endo and DHS tax" you pay on most IS Mechs - do we coin the phrase "LFE Tax?" Won't affect all players, of course, and eventually everyone will have a stable of LFE's like they do XL's now, but at release...

It's debatable how it would be treated, as an option, it would not a mandatory upgrade like DHS is in MWO.

Quote

• Can you limit which mechs can run an LFE, like ECM and MASC now? How would that affect what Mechs we choose to keep/sell, the esport/competitive landscape, Faction Warfare Dropdecks, and of course, what if the LFE model had the worst hard points?

I would treat it just as the XL or Standard engine section, an option.

Quote

• Because it's newer technology, and not found in the age old Hunchback-4G, would you only release it in new Mechs (like a "Dragoon's Pack")? Would you make it fixed equipment to balance it? Would PGI add a variant to the existing Mechs - 3054 models - that had LFE's (they would refer to Sarna for models and hard points) for cash first/C-Bills a month later? Would that be P2W?

I would add them to the game, maybe add a few mechs that have them as standard, but other than that, c-bill engine expansion.

[dario03]

0bsidion, on 12 April 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

I believe the 'new technology' PGI is shying away from is mostly weapons, because there is obviously a lot more work involved in weapons than pretty much anything else, for modelers, GFX artists, and coders, whereas an LFE would mostly just be data entry with a bit of UI work. Of the two, the LFE would be easier to sell PGI on implementing.

It would also add work for balancing. Would a Atlas still need its 17andahalfbillion extra structure if it could run a LFE?

Not saying I'm against LFEs, I actually really really want new equipment and weapons. But I think quirks would need looked at again if something like that was added.

[CK16]

The whole argument still kinds shows why a tech jump will become a rather large issue o.O

I am all for it but current tech might need some changes or buffs. Clans wise we get decent trade of weapons, they are good but the older weapons still have use, like Heavy lasers don't replace ER lasers they lose range and are hotter, while more dmg.

The one that scares alot is Rotary Auto Cannons 2 and 5 for the IS and pray they do make them so 2 or 5 damage a bullet, I hope they break them up in a burst like Clans are now. Also now that if they go that way they completely are better then Clan UAC's (and imo further increase the power gap there cause Clan UAC's are weak atm anyway compared to IS AC's and UAC's). So do they fix Clan UAC's a bit now to be ok vs RAC's?

Also as mentioned as IS gets more ER tech it would almost make standard IS lasers extinct.

There is not just new weapons that a tech jump brings but also rebalance of current weapons.

Edited by CK16, 12 April 2016 - 12:40 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

CK16, on 12 April 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

The whole argument still kinds shows why a tech jump will become a rather large issue o.O

I am all for it but current tech might need some changes or buffs. Clans wise we get decent trade of weapons, they are good but the older weapons still have use, like Heavy lasers don't replace ER lasers they lose range and are hotter, while more dmg.

The one that scares alot is Rotary Auto Cannons 2 and 5 for the IS and pray they do make them so 2 or 5 damage a bullet, I hope they break them up in a burst like Clans are now. Also now that if they go that way they completely are better then Clan UAC's (and imo further increase the power gap there cause Clan UAC's are weak atm anyway compared to IS AC's and UAC's). So do they fix Clan UAC's a bit now to be ok vs RAC's?

Also as mentioned as IS gets more ER tech it would almost make standard IS lasers extinct.

There is not just new weapons that a tech jump brings but also rebalance of current weapons.

IMO all UACs, including the UAC5 for IS shoudl be burst fire. It makes the perfect bridge for the Clan ACs, and having "single shot" IS UAC10s and 20s are going to either be game breaking, or nerfed so hard on cooldown/jam rate or some other (Ghost heat) style mechanic as to be worthless.

This also sets up the future RAC as a sub caliber, high volume AC, making up in quantity what it lacks in "quality" per round. (kind of like using a GAU-8 Avenger cannon to shred tanks in place of 120mm Rhinemetals guns, or a semi rapid fire 78mm gun, etc.

All can accomplish similar end results on armored targets, but through totally different approaches.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 12 April 2016 - 12:45 PM.

[0bsidion]

cazidin, on 12 April 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

But why do we need it? PGI could just as easily make IS XL survive a side torso loss AND we'd get the benefit of roughly half weight engines rather than 3/4 weight engines. R.I.P Standard Engines.

Because it gives the IS a lighter than STD engine with less crit spaces than the IS XL, which opens up more build possibilities.

Though I don't know if 'need' is quite the right word. Technically we don't *need* anything beyond a Locust armed with small lasers to play a big stompy robot shoot'em'up game. But for some crazy reason not everyone wants to run the same cookie-cutter mech, so it's nice to have options.

[Bishop Steiner]

dario03, on 12 April 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

It would also add work for balancing. Would a Atlas still need its 17andahalfbillion extra structure if it could run a LFE?

Not saying I'm against LFEs, I actually really really want new equipment and weapons. But I think quirks would need looked at again if something like that was added.

Since the end goal should always be to reduce reliance on quirks, that would be a good thing.

[CK16]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

IMO all UACs, including the UAC5 for IS shoudl be burst fire. It makes the perfect bridge for the Clan ACs, and having "single shot" IS UAC10s and 20s are going to either be game breaking, or nerfed so hard on cooldown/jam rate or some other (Ghost heat) style mechanic as to be worthless.

This also sets up the future RAC as a sub caliber, high volume AC, making up in quantity what it lacks in "quality" per round. (kind of like using a GAU-8 Avenger cannon to shred tanks in place of 120mm Rhinemetals guns, or a semi rapid fire 78mm gun, etc.

All can accomplish similar end results on armored targets, but through totally different approaches.

Totally agree a twin UAC20 King Crab would end almost all life in any match if each shell did 20 dmg. Something I would NOT want to see. And making burst IS UAC'S would be welcome, sick of the pin point they get and ROF, sure clans give more screen shake but spreads it for more plus not always do you get a full damage spread which sucks!

I also like the idea of the RAC being low dmg per shell but high ROF, not sure if should be full auto like MG's (if so insane jam chance) or if just longer bursts then UAC's with more "clicks" before jam chance that should be higher then UAC's as a trade off, this would be balanced.

Edited by CK16, 12 April 2016 - 01:08 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

CK16, on 12 April 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

Totally agree a twin UAC20 King Crab would end almost all life in any match if each shell did 20 dmg. Something I would NOT want to see. And making burst IS UAC'S would be welcome, sick of the pin point they get and ROF, sure clans give more screen shake but spreads it for more plus not always do you get a full damage spread which sucks!

I also like the idea of the RAC being low dmg per shell but high ROF, not sure if should be full auto like MG's (if so insane jam chance) or if just longer bursts then UAC's with more "clicks" before jam chance that should be higher then UAC's as a trade off, this would be balanced.

RAC High jam or the CoF that widens the longer you keep the trigger down?

Also.....


or fuggedaboutit it.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 12 April 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[CK16]

That would be insane to be on the receiving end of that! They might also have to have a heat gen over time sorta deal.....but would be as you know just as that is IRL you can not run it for very long with out jamming it, so freedom to the pilot if wants to do a massive burst but also Ammo would dry up supper fast as well if you held it down to long, your bins would be empty in seconds.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

RAC High jam or the CoF that widens the longer you keep the trigger down?

Also.....


or fuggedaboutit it.

Music, sweet music.