106 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 12 April 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

which is yet another reason why structure quirks should be removed.

You would have a point if IS mechs didn't rely on this to actually be useful. If mechs that run LFEs aren't more competitive than XL + structure quirks currently, then chances are removing those quirks would do more harm than the LFE could mitigate. In other words this still doesn't fix tech or engine balance.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 April 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 12 April 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

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.

A-10 pilots only hold the trigger down for about a second, any longer and the weapon starts to melt... I had a couple of buddies that were on the receiving end of that during a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan a few years back.... They told me, they never heard it coming, and then all hell broke lose in their unit as two Thunderbolts sprayed death on them.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

You would have a point if IS mechs didn't rely on this to actually be useful. If mechs that run LFEs aren't more competitive than XL + structure quirks currently, then chances are removing those quirks would do more harm than the LFE could mitigate. In other words this still doesn't fix tech or engine balance.

Balance needs to be achieved as: STD = Maximum Zombie Face Tank, XL = Glass Cannon from Hell and LFE splitting the difference.

But the biggest issues to true balance remain the ease of aiming/Alphawarrior and Focus Fire. Focus fire they tried to mitigate with thing slike Laser Locks, which went over...not so well.

Reducing the ease (not the ability, just how easy it is to dump one) of Alphas is all in the aiming mechanics and heat capacity.

I don't think "Balance" can ever be satisfactorily attained until that is rectified. Because in the current game Glass Cannon largely means "Instant Dead" if you get caught out.

And I for one am vehemently against further armor and structure buffs or weapon damage reduction. Too many mechs are already punished. A lone Hunchback with it's AC20 is SUPPOSED to give even Assault Mechs pause, and have the potential to insta gib a Light.

While we don't want to emulate "RNG", the fact is TT was built around not just randomized dmg locations... but aiming and actualyl hitting moving enemies being a LOT harder.

Let's say you were an "Elite" Warrior. Best of the Best, with a Gunnery of 0.

You jump you mech and open fire on a streaking Arctic Cheetah at long range.......

that's a +3 for your jump, +4 for it's movement and +4 for range...... meaning you as the best of the best need an 11 on 2d6 to hit.

Yes, we don't use dice to determine these things, but it is used to emulate the difficulty the task SHOULD entail. Real military engagements, even with armored vehicles (with much better targeting comps than Btech ones have, actually) are rarely so clean and concise, with copious amounts of ammo being used and a lot of misses.

Vehicles still go slow or hull down for better accuracy often times. (Hull down also provides protection, of course).

So what I am saying is not to pray to RNGJeezus, but that we DO have an entirely too easy aiming system, that really exacerbates the Alpha Warrior /Focus Fire TTK issue.

[CK16]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

-snip-

And even then some mechs seem alot more steady to aim then others it feels. Black Knight just is nasty at these pin point alphas its not just cause of its lasers the crosshair has like the perfect balance for tracking its not twitchy like some and its just steady it feels.

That being said, I wish they had a penalty for moving at high speeds, like really a light mech booking it at 150+ with perfect AIM? Ummm no...IMO they should add screen shake (not like JJ or MASC bad) to how fast you are moving, thus Assaults would be pretty good at pin point shots but Lights being forced now to not circle jerk the fatties (also add knock down please, I want to make idiot face hugging lights actually pay and have to be good pilots again...

Edited by CK16, 12 April 2016 - 01:52 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

that's a +3 for your jump, +4 for it's movement and +4 for range...... meaning you as the best of the best need an 11 on 2d6 to hit.

The difference being all it takes is one lucky Gauss/ERPPC shot to almost rip of an entire side torso (with non-stock armor). Or the always fun 3/4 Clan fights that is generally determined by who gets the first headcap. Don't get me wrong, I do think some alphas need curbing and it would be nice to see something done to make single large weapons feel better without overly improving alpha strikes, but one must be careful with overnerfing things and alpha strikes as well, because as I have pointed out several times, pushing this to a game of who can mount the most DPS is not an entertaining game either.

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

Balance needs to be achieved as: STD = Maximum Zombie Face Tank, XL = Glass Cannon from Hell and LFE splitting the difference.

I agree, but without critical hits being a larger facet of this game (thank god), something else needs to be done to ensure the face tanking zombie and glass cannon are both suitable towards their job, and that Clan XLs are balanced against STD engines in someway as well.

[CK16]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

The difference being all it takes is one lucky Gauss/ERPPC shot to almost rip of an entire side torso (with non-stock armor). Or the always fun 3/4 Clan fights that is generally determined by who gets the first headcap. Don't get me wrong, I do think some alphas need curbing and it would be nice to see something done to make single large weapons feel better without overly improving alpha strikes, but one must be careful with overnerfing things and alpha strikes as well, because as I have pointed out several times, pushing this to a game of who can mount the most DPS is not an entertaining game either.


I agree, but without critical hits being a larger facet of this game (thank god), something else needs to be done to ensure the face tanking zombie and glass cannon are both suitable towards their job, and that Clan XLs are balanced against STD engines in someway as well.

Except the issue is it is difficult to balance the Clan XL to IS STD cause like 90% of Clan mechs can not swap engines and all Omnis use the XL. So if you nerf Clan XL you all but killl off the weaker Clan mechs (Summoner, Ice Ferret ect.). IMO Clan XL's are perfect the way they operate losing speed and heat cap on a loss of a ST was painful but did its job well. LFE should suffer similar penalties while functioning like Clan XL's just weight a bit more.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

CK16, on 12 April 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Except the issue is it is difficult to balance the Clan XL to IS STD cause like 90% of Clan mechs can not swap engines and all in-game Omnis use the XL.

FTFY, because there are four in-timeline Omnis that use STD engines, two of which could be decent if STD engines weren't near worthless as far as the meta goes (I <3 the Stooping Hawk).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 April 2016 - 02:01 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

The difference being all it takes is one lucky Gauss/ERPPC shot to almost rip of an entire side torso (with non-stock armor). Or the always fun 3/4 Clan fights that is generally determined by who gets the first headcap. Don't get me wrong, I do think some alphas need curbing and it would be nice to see something done to make single large weapons feel better without overly improving alpha strikes, but one must be careful with overnerfing things and alpha strikes as well, because as I have pointed out several times, pushing this to a game of who can mount the most DPS is not an entertaining game either.


I agree, but without critical hits being a larger facet of this game (thank god), something else needs to be done to ensure the face tanking zombie and glass cannon are both suitable towards their job, and that Clan XLs are balanced against STD engines in someway as well.

Well, do recall, if we removed the training wheel from aiming, with things like Reticle Sway (yes I know, bad words, but please hear me out as this is for demonstrations sake, lol!) Situational Mild CoF Situational meaning: Under "normal" conditions and circumstances, where you aim, you hit. BUT, when operating outside the parameters the systems were designed for, then yes, a scaling CoF is incurred, just as randomness is incurred IRL when systems are pushed beyond their limits.

Thus a mech that is firing it's weapons while:
-Cruising at under 75% of maximum throttle
-Firing at "optimal" ranges (aka TT ranges, not into the doubled range brackett of MWO)
-Staying relatively cool (say under 75% of the heat scale)
would have ZERO randomness to their shots.

BUT, Mechs that are:
-Jumping
-Running at max or near max speed
-Running consistently near overheat
-firing at ranges outside the parameters of their targeting computers
Would incur a CoF that increased the further those conditions were pushed.

that way I still have control over my shots (as long as I maintain reasonable discipline)..... whereas fixed convergence takes a huge chunk of that away.

anyhow, just felt that needed ot be there since one says CoF people pull out the most ridiculous strawmen claiming it means missing shots, etc, when it certainly doesn't need to (basically at maximum situational CoF all shots should still stay Minute of Mech if aimed center mass, and the less factors involved, the tighter the cluster)

Anyhow, at this time you get DPS weapons having the same vagaries to actual combat accuracy that heavy pinpoint weapons do. And as long as all weapons were at least semi randomized within that CoF (which at slow brawling speeds would essentially not exist) one would find that skill still very much matters, in fact it matters even more, but that it would minimize the instagib.

Shoot you average Abrams shot is "Minute of tank turret" or cluster within about a 2 meter circle. With just a minor spread like that, TTK would jump a lot, instead of all lasers hitting with millimetric precision, etc.

And of course, it will never happen. But it would solve the biggest issue with TTK, add immersion and give us a better starting point for actually balancing weapons and minimizing quirks.

Heck I'd even add in something like getting nailed by an AC20/Gauss or such would mildly impact your CoF for .25 second to represent trying to compensate for such a large hit and the inherent imbalance it could cause.

[Hit the Deck]

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

...
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?
...
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?
....

• How do you keep the IS-Standard Engine viable? Increase the ST crit slots on the LFE to match the XL?

I've kind of answered these questions in the OP. LFE does make STD kind of obsolete. STD would be relegated to niche builds like you mentioned or builds which absolutely need all of crit space on the ST. To make to builds worth more, give STD durability bonus.

I'll take the AS7-S as an example. It needs all of those space on left ST for those quad artemis'ed SRM6. If STD gives durability bonus on top of AS7-7's own quirks, then it will be even more durable! You can choose to bring LFE for more tonnage but you need to remove the artemis and lose the durability bonus from the STD.

[BigBenn]

I'd rather PGI introduce something of a "super" XL engine that keeps on ticking even though it took damage. Have it operate similar to the Clan engine if it takes damage, but maybe at a lesser rate (- 30% speed?),.... AND have it take up one more crit space in the side torsos.

Why not?

[wanderer]

One thing that honestly makes Clan XL so nice (and LFE's for the IS side if/when they're added) is that PGI doesn't model engine damage. At all. Nor gyros, for that matter- which are two "kill the robot" parts (a dead engine is a full kill, a dead gyro is at least a mobility kill). You lose the engine only when the section it's in is destroyed.

Basically, 10 points of damage to engine locations should start giving negative effects, 20 points is effectively what happens when a Clan XL loses a ST, and 30 damage is an engine kill. Yes, this means that a 'Mech could very well just have internal damage and go down. Model engine damage properly (vs. ignoring it completely) and Clan XLs (or LFE's) would be much less of an uneven damage survivor than they are now..

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

There are three problems with LFEs.

Problem the 1st

In a direct translation, they are still objectively inferior to cXL (weighing more and using the same number of crit spaces)

Solution:
Modify the crit spaces used for LFE to be 1 crit in each ST. Loss of both STs should still result in death.

Why:
When using a normalized formula to penalize an engine's mobility according to how many crits are lost on ST destruction, the penalty will be less severe.

Problem the 2nd

Introducing LFEs will not solve the balance of inferior IS choices (isXL and Std. engine) compared to cXL.

Solution:
Introduce a normalized formula for mobility loss that applies to any engine that has ST engine crits.

Percentage Penalty = 1/(X/Y) ; where "X" is the total number of crits used by the engine and "Y" is the number of crits lost on ST destruction.

Why:
In the absence of a true crit-by-crit destruction model (as in TT), and the proceeding absence of certain theoretically possible circumstances resulting in death, it is unfair that IS should suffer "sudden death" due to ST loss.

This unfairness resulting in the requirement for compensation (currently via Quirks) furthers and exacerbates the cycle of imbalance by effectively creating two-way imbalance.

Problem the 3rd

The compensatory Quirks that we have now are set up for the "either/or" approach. Introducing LFE complicates the compensation required for IS against cXL.

Solution:
Allow isXL to survives ST loss, strip (most) durability Quirks off IS 'Mechs and implement the normalized formula suggested above.

Why:
If isXL were allowed to survive ST loss AND the normalized formula suggested above were implemented, there would be no need for compensatory Quirks for either isXL or LFE, they would already be viable in comparison to cXL.

Further Concerns

Standard Engines:
This might be thought to make Std. engines obsolete. This is only true if they are not buffed some way.

Additional structure to the CT should allow them to remain viable. That the structure buff is connected with the engine instead of the chassis means that they retain viability in comparison not only to IS choices, but to cXL, as well.

Development Time:
Implementing LFE would certainly take a good chunk of developer time.

This should go at the bottom of the list of things to do. Simply changing isXL and buffing Std. engines is much more effective and will have a much greater effect on game balance.

Ideal Solution?
Making isXL survive ST loss is NOT the ideal solution, but it is the best (considering time, cost, balance and effectiveness).

The ideal solution is to implement a true crit-by-crit engine destruction mechanism and have all engines die on 3-crits destroyed.

However, that would be an extremely resource-intensive method and probably not cost-effective.

Thus, I maintain that changing isXL to function like cXL and buffing Std. engines is the best solution.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 12 April 2016 - 07:47 PM.

[Seal Farmer]

IS NEEDS LiFE

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

You would have a point if IS mechs didn't rely on this to actually be useful. If mechs that run LFEs aren't more competitive than XL + structure quirks currently, then chances are removing those quirks would do more harm than the LFE could mitigate. In other words this still doesn't fix tech or engine balance.

They rely on those quirks because balance is complete trash and needs to be comprehensively adjusted, and adding LFEs & removing structure quirks would be a small part of that.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

FTFY, because there are four in-timeline Omnis that use STD engines, two of which could be decent if STD engines weren't near worthless as far as the meta goes (I <3 the Stooping Hawk).

There isn't a valid way to make cSTD vs cXL a good choice though, even if the meta was somehow actually improved.

You make a decent point about STD engines being crap, which is because current game balance is buried in a mountain of dogshit and quirks (structure quirks included) are a huge part of that, but even after fixing that you still wouldn't see cSTD comparing to cXL because cXL saves enough weight (while only being a 10-slot engine instead of a 12-slot engine) that it will pretty much always be the best choice for clans.

The only way to make clan STD omnimechs good would be to bend the rules to insanity, at which point why even include them at all?

Edited by Pjwned, 13 April 2016 - 11:20 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 13 April 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

They rely on those quirks because balance is complete trash and needs to be comprehensively adjusted, and adding LFEs & removing structure quirks would be a small part of that.

It wouldn't fix it completely though, I would prefer quirks over seeing IS mechs not being useful in comp until they figure out another way to balance things.

Pjwned, on 13 April 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

The only way to make clan STD omnimechs good would be to bend the rules to insanity, at which point why even include them at all?

Or maybe just not make cXL a facet of powercreep, if that is "bending rules to insanity" then so be it. I'd rather have options than just be put into a situation like it is now where it either mounts a cXL or it is always inferior.

[Corrado]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 April 2016 - 09:54 PM, said:

I'd run the heck out of LFEs, actually, because being able to lose ST and live is huge. Especially on mech swithout good shield arms.

Yeah, my Banshee probably would not need it, but I could see others that would use it, and a fair bit of IS mechs do run STDs even with the lower firepower because of the instagib factor. Maybe not as much in comp team play, but that's what....5% of the playerbase, generously?

The issue is, that is something that needs to be added when we do a timeskip and tech advance, and not before.

But my HBK-4G would be the first in line for a 250.275 LFE, tyvm. And all my Archers.

i'll do the same the whole line. LFE in all my hunchies, griffins and shadowhawks. LFE black knights, thunderbolts, catapults, zeus, awesome, almost everything (besides the atlas. i'll still run it with STD for it's damage sponge role)

[Alan Davion]

There's a lot of posts I'd like to respond to here, but too many to put into quotes and try and get it all organized in a way I'd like, so I'll just try to put my thoughts, opinions and observations into line here.

For starters, the question of STD/LFE/XL/CXL...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There have been lots of good points made so far, but one thing that's really stuck in my craw are the "IS XL Normalization" people, if the IS XL loses the "lose a ST you die" penalty, then the Clans will want some concession to make up for it, likely the penalties to speed and heat dissipation removed, and then we're back to the Clans being overly dominant like they were when they first came out... Maybe not quite that bad, but I hope you see my point.

The CXL is arguably the best engine in the game right now, we all know this, we all accept this. Or at least I hope to Christ we all do. I'd bet real money that there are some people out there that don't acknowledge this fact, or worse, refuse to acknowledge this fact. The STDs are probably right behind it in the #2 slot since you don't just pop like a champagne cork on a ST loss. The LFE is already about as balanced as it can be in relation to all the different engines in that it's a middle ground between the STD and the XL.

You survive a ST loss like the Clans XL, but you don't have as much weight savings like the XLs, you only save 25% over the XLs 50%.

I don't see how the LFE can be balanced, or any of the other engines for that matter, any more than they already are?

STD: 100% weight, CT only, less available weight for weapons/ammo/equipment.

LFE: 75% weight, 2 slots/ST, gives a little more weight for weapons/ammo/equipment, and allows for some amount of weapon stacking that the IS XL doesn't allow for, doesn't die from single ST loss.

IS XL: 50% weight, 3 slots/ST, doesn't allow for some weapon stacking combos, but gives you the most available weight for weapons/ammo/equipment, you die from a single ST loss.

Clan XL: Again, 50% weight, 2 slots/ST... You've basically got a 25% lighter LFE, allowing you more weight to allocate to weapons/ammo/equipment, and you can stack weapons to the Nth degree thanks to Clan weapons being lighter and taking up less crits than some of their IS equivalents.

There's enough advantages and disadvantages for IS engines as it is. You want to survive the longest, but have less space for weapons, you take a STD. You want to pack more weapons/ammo in, but know that you're risking getting easily ganked, you take an XL.

An LFE allows you to take a little more in the way of weapons/ammo, and allows you to survive a single ST loss. They are better and worse in one way or another compared to STDs and XLs. Obviously there should be some form of penalty for an LFE losing a ST, but they can't be too severe or people will complain about God-Only-Knows-What. Back to the whole IS/Clan XL argument mostly I would guess.

What are the current Clan penalties for XL ST loss? 20% wasn't it? If I remember reading some of the earlier comments properly... I think that's about fair, with some exceptions of course, the DWF gets seriously screwed, but it's the only one I can think of at the moment... The Turkina would probably suffer pretty badly too, due to it's huge overall body like the King Crab.

Speed/Heat penalties for a LFE ST loss should be about equal to the Clan's 20%, but no higher than a 25-30% penalty, and that's going to seriously hamper some mechs, almost as bad if not worse than the DWF if I had to venture a guess.

I seriously don't know where this whole "IS XL Normalization" movement came from, but it's a seriously bad idea as I said in my first bit there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now then, onto the whole bit about people crying, pissing and moaning about the timeline.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As someone said, LFEs are timeline appropriate to a degree as of 3053, and seeing as that's where we are, the LFE should have the chance to be added, as it gives IS players more flexibility to combat the Clans superior technology.

Yes, I said Clans superior technology, just bare with me for a bit, okay?

Clan tech is superior only in that many weapons are lighter and take up less crit space than many of their IS counterparts, then there's the fact that Clan Endo/Ferro takes up fewer crits as well.

The usual Clan range advantages are nullified on most of the maps the game currently hads... Alpine Peaks and Polar Highlands being probably the two major exceptions to said rule, but pretty much every other map in the game, Solo and CW nullifies the Clan range advantage to some degree, some maps more than others, the tunnel on Crimson Straight for example.

Now, as far as weapons are concerned, we can give the IS the remainder of the weapons they do not have that Clans do, ER Small/Medium, Ultra AC2/10/20, LBX AC2/10/20, Streak 4/6 and I think that's about it... If I happened to miss any weapons do let me know.

Get all the IS equivalent weapons balanced against the Clans weapon list and then we'll worry about "FutureTech" weapons like X-Pulse/ER-Pulse, Heavy/Light versions of different weapons, so on and so forth. The only weapons that will likely be impossible to implement and/or balance are weapons that require ammo switching, such as certain LRM/MRM/SRM ammo types.

This is really what I feel the biggest problem MWO has had since the introduction of the Clans.

Without the benefit of 12v10 asymmetrical balancing, the game needed to be symmetrically balanced from the get go. As in, they should have gotten all IS timeline appropriate mechs/weapons/equipment into the game and well and properly balanced first...

This includes ECM.

The major exceptions to this timeline rule are of course the Classic/Formerly Unseen mechs like the Stinger/Wasp, Warhammer, Marauder and so forth. These mechs should have been in the game from the get go, but because of the continual pissing contest Harmoney Gold holds over these mechs and their source material, were denied the ability to be put into the game until now, and even then several of those mechs are taking a long time to make it into the game to ensure they do not incur the wrath of those idiots.

Those being the Stinger/Wasp, Valkyrie and Crusader. I'm confident than the Longbow won't take too long to redesign sufficiently to separate it from the original version.

Then, and only then should PGI have thrown the timeline appropriate Clan mechs into the mix, Omnimechs, IICs and whatever completely unique Clan Battlemechs there are along with the equivalent IS weapons as I just pointed out, then iterate the balance from there until it was time for a timeline jump... Bringing in the IS Omnimechs for example.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy crap what a spiel that was.

If I missed anything, or am wrong about anything, please do point it out.

EDIT: For whatever reason, some of the edits I try to make to make this a little more neatly formatted will not go through... Whatever.

Edited by Alan Davion, 13 April 2016 - 03:18 PM.

[Lykaon]

Hit the Deck, on 11 April 2016 - 08:28 PM, said:

One of the argument against "XL engine normalization", which is to make isXL still functional despite losing 3 crits (like in an ST destruction), is the headache involved to balance STD, LFE, and XL engine when it's time for IS to get LFE. Note that an LFE weighs 75% of an equivalent STD.

An LFE only occupies 2 crit space (slots) on each ST like cXLs. This has several important implications, two of which are:

• allowing IS 'Mechs to equip AC/20 with LFE (not possible with isXL)
  
• allowing IS 'Mechs to survive an ST destruction when carrying a Gauss on that ST with LFE

Because of their unique characteristics, they will allow more possible builds to be created. Thus, I don't agree if PGI should just not release LFE because of the argument which states that it would be redundant when they normalize the two XLs.


When LFE arrives, STD would be relegated to specialized builds like the 5x AC/5 Mauler or anything else which absolutely need all of the 12 crit space on the ST. They can give STD engines durability bonus to make those specialized builds worth more.

What do you think?

Even if the Inner Sphere and clan Xl engines were "normalized" this would not invalidate the LFE or standard engine. This is an assumption that the addition of the LFE with "normalized" XL engines would occur without any alterations to either basic critical hit mechanics or alterations in engine characteristics.

For example.

Alter the effects of XL (and LFE) side torso destruction from a speed debuff to a heat penalty. Or add a heat penalty accompanied with an adjusted speed debuff.

Example: Clan XL engine side torso destroyed effects: + 10% heat build - 5% speed

I.S. XL engine side torso destroyed effect: +15% heat build -7% speed

LFE side torso destroyed effect: + 5% heat build -5% speed can survive both torsos being destroyed but torso destruction effect are cumulative (+10% heat build -10% speed debuff.)

Standard engines apply a CT structure quirk adding XX% to CT structure when used.

So the Clans will use a standard engine if the pilot opts for improved resiliance gained from the standard engine structure quirk.

The Inner Sphere pilot can opt to take the LFE to gain some weight savings but sacrifice the Std engine durability and risk the engine damage debuffs

Inner sphere XLs have high weight savings but impose stiffer penalties when damaged,are destroyed when both side torsos are destroyed.


Standard = high durability
LFE = durability with performance degradation when damaged
XL = most fragile with best weight savings

[wanderer]

Point of order: IS 'Mechs should already be able to mount AC/20's with an XL engine in the torso, but MWO failed to put the ability to split-location mount them into the game. (And heavy gauss have this problem later as well.)

This also means later robots like the Thunder or Fafnir can't be made in MWO, and renders the Arrow IV and larger arty cannons invalid in MWO builds as well.

[Hit the Deck]

wanderer, on 13 April 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Point of order: IS 'Mechs should already be able to mount AC/20's with an XL engine in the torso, but MWO failed to put the ability to split-location mount them into the game. (And heavy gauss have this problem later as well.)

This also means later robots like the Thunder or Fafnir can't be made in MWO, and renders the Arrow IV and larger arty cannons invalid in MWO builds as well.

Fafnir uses STD engine so we can still have it with the Heavy Gauss. The other things you mentioned are indeed not possible. From my hazy recollection, it seems that PGI decided not to implement crit splitting because somehow they feel that they don't like it (don't quote me on this).