88 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Cathy, on 17 April 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

I'm not hot on either to be honest, I might change my mind if I saw what Alex did with them, but I'm going to ask this question, and i'm asking it as a person that is on record as not being a clan fan.

If a standard engine is locked into a clan Omni.

Why shouldn't it be quirked ?
Surely each mech is taken on merit, separately and doesn't open a can of worms as it can't have it swapped out for an XL

With no changes to standard engines, it would have to be quirked.

My issue is that it's just making things messier. I freely admit my issue is with quirks as a whole and how they're used to balance things - that is, in theory they're great, but there's so many mechs with quirks now that balance adjustments (in practice) are getting repeatedly f**ked up because there's just too much workload there. Yes, there are lots of ways that could potentially be addressed, but that doesn't appear to be happening.

Instead, we periodically get one guy who goes over the vast list of mechs and makes changes to all their quirks. As the list of quirked mechs increases, the time spent on each case decreases.

Quirking the Kingfisher would work, I don't deny that at all. I just feel it's a poor long term solution, and one that will cause problems down the road for the Kingfisher as many clan balance decisions (specifically weapon balance decisions) are made through the lens of a mech mounting a cXL. Because, Kingfisher excluded, if there are no changes to how standard engines work, nobody with half an ounce of a brain is mounting a standard engine in a Clan Battlemech.

[C E Dwyer]

Wintersdark, on 17 April 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

With no changes to standard engines, it would have to be quirked.

My issue is that it's just making things messier. I freely admit my issue is with quirks as a whole and how they're used to balance things - that is, in theory they're great, but there's so many mechs with quirks now that balance adjustments (in practice) are getting repeatedly f**ked up because there's just too much workload there. Yes, there are lots of ways that could potentially be addressed, but that doesn't appear to be happening.

Instead, we periodically get one guy who goes over the vast list of mechs and makes changes to all their quirks. As the list of quirked mechs increases, the time spent on each case decreases.

Quirking the Kingfisher would work, I don't deny that at all. I just feel it's a poor long term solution, and one that will cause problems down the road for the Kingfisher as many clan balance decisions (specifically weapon balance decisions) are made through the lens of a mech mounting a cXL. Because, Kingfisher excluded, if there are no changes to how standard engines work, nobody with half an ounce of a brain is mounting a standard engine in a Clan Battlemech.

I think quirks have already made this game into a mess, quirks were in theory a great idea, but they were not supposed to be the complete solution, they have over time become it, and it is wrong.

However quirks is what we got and sadly will remain the only way to balance unless the Lead developer is changed.

I don't see adding quirks to another mech is really going to change things.

I do see where your coming from, but I just don't think quirks will ever stop being the 'final solution,

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 17 April 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

Quirking the Kingfisher would work, I don't deny that at all. I just feel it's a poor long term solution, and one that will cause problems down the road for the Kingfisher as many clan balance decisions (specifically weapon balance decisions) are made through the lens of a mech mounting a cXL. Because, Kingfisher excluded, if there are no changes to how standard engines work, nobody with half an ounce of a brain is mounting a standard engine in a Clan Battlemech.

Sure.

I see your point, but hopefully it will remain the tankiest Clan assault regardless of what weapon balance changes happen. With its hard points, I think it would still be more useful than Gargoyle at anything other than small laser boating, even if it didn't have any quirks at all.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 17 April 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[KinLuu]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 April 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

With its hard points, I think it would still be more useful than Gargoyle at anything other than small laser boating

Thats not a huge compliment.

[Gas Guzzler]

KinLuu, on 17 April 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Thats not a huge compliment.

Yet here the Gargoyle sits in game, as the 3rd assault mech released for Clans...

And that's without quirks, meaning it would be significantly better with the quirks I suggested.

[Jackal Noble]

Just reread the sarna on it. Make it tough as nails and it could work. On the topic of quirks, what gives, if we are going to continue down this path of quickening, why not throw in some more flavor quirks instead of just weapon and structure. Like sensor speed or increased range for the Cyclops etc. Eeesh I feel like I just chewed a mouthful of glass, never thought I would say anything regarding the support of quirks

[Torric]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 April 2016 - 11:37 AM, said:

Why? ballistic velocity quirks on 1 UAC10/20 or 2 UAC5s is that scary to you?

No. Ballistic velocity, ER/PPC velocity, any projectile velocity is just messing with the players.

I used to be fairly good with U/ACs, hitting almost every shot even on moving light mechs. Now, i have to adapt to each single mech and plow the ground with my first few shots because there are suddenly as many different ACs as there are mechs with ballistic velocity quirks.

If there is a problem with projectile velocity, buff the freakin weapon as a whole.

And no, not necessarily the clan UACs, they are bad enough as it is when boated already (to be fair, problem here lies more with the ability of certain clan mechs to boat THAT MANY of them).

[ScarecrowES]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 April 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Did you read the whole post about the Kingfisher? It could be a solid tank that still has a scary enough alpha strike to matter. (54-61 damage)

For somebody who wants the Linebacker, I'm surprised you would write off the Kingfisher for not having enough firepower. To be honest, I think the Kingfisher would actually arguably be more useful than the Turkina in most situations.

Many folks' arguments against the Linebacker is that appears to have fewer free tons than other mechs in its class, which is true... it has the same effective equipment tonnage as the 10-ton lighter Stormcrow at 22 effective tons. But it trades free tonnage for speed... dropping in a massive engine that also allows it to run as fast as the Stormcrow, while being more mobile, and carrying the extra armor and internals being 10 tons heavier affords it. It makes a trade... and the argument many people make is that it's not the trade they'd have chosen.

In the case of the Kingfisher, it really gains nothing from the extra weight taken on by using a standard engine in a Clan chassis. Clan XLs are roughly as robust as IS standards are, while taking up less weight... and are smaller than IS XLs to boot. Using the standard engine is, by all accounts, simply wasting tonnage. It does little to enhance the survivability of the mech... only saving it from a minor drop in speed (so what, 57kph?) if it loses a torso.

Moreover, representing the Kingfisher's notorious survivability in MWO would depend entirely on massive quirks the mech would be unlikely to get. It's an omni. Certain rules in MWO apply to omnis. Granted, those rules would HAVE to be broken to make the mech viable... but I think PGI is more likely to exclude mechs that require significant exceptions to fundemental build rules rather than include a mech that depends on those sorts of exceptions.

Even should it receive those exceptions and be thoroughly quirked, I don't see how its possibly enhanced survivability would balance with its lack of firepower against mechs like the Atlas, which have both survivability AND firepower. I doubt any Clan mech will ever receive quirk levels that the Atlas sees.

The Kingfisher, sadly, is the sort of mech that gets shafted by PGIs rigid adherence to its fundemental mech construction ruleset. If only you could put an XL in it, it'd probably be a reasonable mech. But with that standard engine, you're literally wasting tonnage.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 17 April 2016 - 02:02 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

ScarecrowES, on 17 April 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

Many folks' arguments against the Linebacker is that appears to have fewer free tons than other mechs in its class, which is true... it has the same effective equipment tonnage as the 10-ton lighter Stormcrow at 22 effective tons. But it trades free tonnage for speed... dropping in a massive engine that also allows it to run as fast as the Stormcrow, while being more mobile, and carrying the extra armor and internals being 10 tons heavier affords it. It makes a trade... and the argument many people make is that it's not the trade they'd have chosen.

In the case of the Kingfisher, it really gains nothing from the extra weight taken on by using a standard engine in a Clan chassis. Clan XLs are roughly as robust as IS standards are, while taking up less weight... and are smaller than IS XLs to boot. Using the standard engine is, by all accounts, simply wasting tonnage. It does little to enhance the survivability of the mech... only saving it from a minor drop in speed (from what, 57kph?) if it loses a torso.

Moreover, representing the Kingfisher's notorious survivability in MWO would depend entirely on massive quirks the mech would be unlikely to get. It's an omni. Certain rules in MWO apply to omnis. Granted, those rules would HAVE to be broken to make the mech viable... but I think PGI is more likely to exclude mechs that require significant exceptions to fundemental build rules rather than include a mech that depends on those sorts of exceptions.

Even should it receive those exceptions and be thoroughly quirked, I don't see how its possibly enhanced survivability would balance with its lack of firepower against mechs like the Atlas, which have both survivability AND firepower. I doubt any Clan mech will ever receive quirk levels that the Atlas sees.

The Kingfisher, sadly, is the sort of mech that gets shafted by PGIs rigid adherence to its fundemental mech construction ruleset. If only you could put an XL in it, it'd probably be a reasonable mech. But with that standard engine, you're literally wasting tonnage.

I don't think you are thinking it through all the way though.

First, the mech has 24 tons of podspace and 17 locked DHS, meaning it can easily bring enough firepower to lay down 54-61 damage.

Second, you say omni's aren't quirked, but take a look at the Gargoyles structure quirks. Those things are significant, making my suggested quirks within the realm of possibility. It doesn't need Atlas level quirks unless it is that big or slow. 70 kph is fast enough to allow you to roll damage. 60 kph, not so much.

Maybe you would prefer to have a fast undergunned heavy, but between the two I don't think there is an objective reason to include one and not the other, given how quirks can be used to make up for the tonnage used up by the STD engine.

Regarding the Atlas, close range firepower has a little bit less utility, and requires that you take damage. The Kingfisher wouldn't necessarily be that type of mech. It would be more of a poke and fade mech that would take a lot of shots.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 17 April 2016 - 02:05 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 April 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Maybe you would prefer to have a fast undergunned heavy, but between the two I don't think there is an objective reason to include one and not the other, given how quirks can be used to make up for the tonnage used up by the STD engine.

Well, you'd be misusing the word "objective" then. Subjectively, you could say that, in your opinion, the enhanced speed and maneuverability the Linebacker receives by trading away some of its weapons' weight for a larger engine is not worth that investment - that it will negatively impact the potential performance of the mech. Subjectively, that opinion is valid, as opinions tend to be. Objectively, said argument has no merit, as the performance of a mech is largely subjective - and we have every reason to believe, also objectively, that the Linebacker has every element necessary to perform at least as well as the Stormcrow, which is a top tier mech.

Now... objectively, we can say that putting a standard engine in a Clan mech, discounting any argument about the size of that engine, will negatively impact the potential performance of the mech. Clan mechs gain very little survivability (the only excuse to use one) with standard engines over their improved XL engines. The result is a significant amount of lost tonnage for which no practical benefit is gained. That is, objectively, a bad choice.

Can quirks be used to make up for what is objectively a bad configuration? Absolutely. But it would require unprecedented levels of quirks for a Clan mech (which it would not likely get, thanks to PGI's rules), and even then would still only manage to squeek back into the "over-engined, under-gunned" category that so many revile. You're literally quirking the hell out of the mech just to bring it to lower-tier usefulness.

But I'm not one to deny a player his choice in mech. It's timeline appropriate, and has enough variants using existing tech. I personally don't have a stake in it. Once the Kodiak comes out, and after the DW and WHK resize, I won't be needing another clan assault for potentially a very long time. Should either the Turkina or Kingfisher be released, they'd have to be VERY compelling for me to consider a purchase, and it's unlikely I'd choose the Kingfisher over the Turkina.

[Gas Guzzler]

ScarecrowES, on 17 April 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

Well, you'd be misusing the word "objective" then. Subjectively, you could say that, in your opinion, the enhanced speed and maneuverability the Linebacker receives by trading away some of its weapons' weight for a larger engine is not worth that investment - that it will negatively impact the potential performance of the mech. Subjectively, that opinion is valid, as opinions tend to be. Objectively, said argument has no merit, as the performance of a mech is largely subjective - and we have every reason to believe, also objectively, that the Linebacker has every element necessary to perform at least as well as the Stormcrow, which is a top tier mech.

Now... objectively, we can say that putting a standard engine in a Clan mech, discounting any argument about the size of that engine, will negatively impact the potential performance of the mech. Clan mechs gain very little survivability (the only excuse to use one) with standard engines over their improved XL engines. The result is a significant amount of lost tonnage for which no practical benefit is gained. That is, objectively, a bad choice.

Can quirks be used to make up for what is objectively a bad configuration? Absolutely. But it would require unprecedented levels of quirks for a Clan mech (which it would not likely get, thanks to PGI's rules), and even then would still only manage to squeek back into the "over-engined, under-gunned" category that so many revile. You're literally quirking the hell out of the mech just to bring it to lower-tier usefulness.

But I'm not one to deny a player his choice in mech. It's timeline appropriate, and has enough variants using existing tech. I personally don't have a stake in it. Once the Kodiak comes out, and after the DW and WHK resize, I won't be needing another clan assault for potentially a very long time. Should either the Turkina or Kingfisher be released, they'd have to be VERY compelling for me to consider a purchase, and it's unlikely I'd choose the Kingfisher over the Turkina.

I'm not really using objective incorrectly. It seems you would rather have an overengined undergunned heavy than a Kingfisher, which is purely subjective. Objectively speaking, the Kingfisher has the potential to be more useful than a Linebacker.

Additionally, you keep saying that thing about not quirking Omnis. The Gargoyle has 17 extra structure on its Side torsos, and 12 to its CT. Those are significant numbers, in the order of magnitude of the quirks I suggest for the Kingfisher. Even the 70 ton Summoner has 15 ST structure, 11 arm structure, etc.

You keep sayings its wasted tonnage on the STD, but what you are essentially saying is it has perfect justification for meaningful quirks, more so than the Gargoyle, or the Linebacker for that matter, because as you put it, they are over-engined but are also getting something out of that additional tonnage (speed).

In your opinion, you would rather have the Linebacker and that's fine, but like I said, there is no OBJECTIVE reason for why its more worthy for a release than a Kingfisher or Turkina is.

[Metus regem]

Between the Dire Trukey (more or less a Dire Wolf S folks) and the Kingfisher, I would chose the Kingfisher. Partly due to my preferred Clan being Ghost Bear, the other is that it is not a worse Dire Wolf. And that's the truth of the mater, the Dire Turky has a locked 285, giving it the same speed and logically the same agility as the Dire Wolf, unless they pull a King Crab and give it double the twist range and twist speed. On top of that engine problem it is also forced to carry 6t in locked JJ's, making it jump like a Dire Wolf S, in other words it can clear small pebbles and cars.... Compounded by this the Dire Turky uses standard internals and armour, yet only keeps 5 free spaces in each ST between a Locked JJ and two DHS that are occupying crit spaces 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. That means one open slot between the cXL and the JJ, with twin DHS directly under that, leaving slots 9-12 open (the last four) for equipment, this makes for a very restrictive equipment placement on it in the ST's, fortunately the bulk of the variants we would see mount nothing really impressive in the ST's anyways, mostly LRM 10's/15's/20's.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Linebacker, Black Lanner, Kingfisher, Turkina, all in the......



.... category. Not worth arguing which is less worthy of being in the game.

As far as PGI making money off them, which matters the most to them tbh, the Black Lanner and Linebacker are likely to be a much easier sell than either of those assault options.

I think the next assault will be either the Bane, or the Marauder IIC, or the Mad Cat MK. II, each of which will sell huge gangbusters numbers.

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 17 April 2016 - 03:17 PM.

[RedDevil]

If PGI could somehow balance mechs with a combat value, rather than tonnage, then quirks could be tossed out the window except for character quirks (twist, accel, top speed, jump, sensors etc.). A big broadside heavy mech, with almost no hardpoints could cost the same as a Storm Crow to bring etc...

[Gas Guzzler]

LT. HARDCASE, on 17 April 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

I think the next assault will be either the Bane, or the Marauder IIC, or the Mad Cat MK. II, each of which will sell huge gangbusters numbers.

Yes, of course power creep sells...

I would rather we didn't go there, because then why bother releasing any other Clan assault mech?

[Lucian Nostra]

would love to see the Turkina..

[Gas Guzzler]

Lucian Nostra, on 17 April 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

would love to see the Turkina..

Would love to see both of the Omins frankly.

[dervishx5]

In game model of the Turkina and Kingfisher:

[ScarecrowES]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 April 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

I'm not really using objective incorrectly. It seems you would rather have an overengined undergunned heavy than a Kingfisher, which is purely subjective. Objectively speaking, the Kingfisher has the potential to be more useful than a Linebacker.

Additionally, you keep saying that thing about not quirking Omnis. The Gargoyle has 17 extra structure on its Side torsos, and 12 to its CT. Those are significant numbers, in the order of magnitude of the quirks I suggest for the Kingfisher. Even the 70 ton Summoner has 15 ST structure, 11 arm structure, etc.

You keep sayings its wasted tonnage on the STD, but what you are essentially saying is it has perfect justification for meaningful quirks, more so than the Gargoyle, or the Linebacker for that matter, because as you put it, they are over-engined but are also getting something out of that additional tonnage (speed).

In your opinion, you would rather have the Linebacker and that's fine, but like I said, there is no OBJECTIVE reason for why its more worthy for a release than a Kingfisher or Turkina is.

The objective reason is that a standard engine in a clan mech purely wastes whatever the tonnage difference is between that engine and its XL version. In the case of the Kingfisher, you're talking about giving up 16.5 tons and getting NO BENEFIT in return. It's not as though using a standard engine in a Clan mech greatly increases its survivability, as it does in IS mechs. Your increase in that arena is so small as to be fundementally not worth the cost.

Now, if the Kingfisher had a 360XL instead of a 360 standard, you'd get no complaints from me. A 360 engine on a 90-ton mech is reasonable, and gives you 65kph, which is a respectable speed for a Clan Assault. But you'd also get a staggering 40.5 tons of pod space and 17 DHS with the XL - instead of merely 24 tons with the standard. That's a HUGE difference.

Is there any amount of quirking PGI could possibly add to the Kingfisher to make up for that lost 16.5 tons? And even if you did add structural quirks to make the mech ridiculously survivable compared to other mechs... you're still running at 65kph in a mech with only 24 tons of pod space. You're a sitting duck without any way to fight back. Unless the quirks you get are in the 100% range (any adjustment less than 20% is largely negligible), even the smallest mechs carry enough alpha damage to remove any extra structure or armor you've been given via quirks in only 1-2 more hits, which increases your survivability to a mere few seconds.

Quirks vs 16.5 tons of pod space. Objectively, which has more value?

[Gas Guzzler]

ScarecrowES, on 17 April 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

The objective reason is that a standard engine in a clan mech purely wastes whatever the tonnage difference is between that engine and its XL version. In the case of the Kingfisher, you're talking about giving up 16.5 tons and getting NO BENEFIT in return. It's not as though using a standard engine in a Clan mech greatly increases its survivability, as it does in IS mechs. Your increase in that arena is so small as to be fundementally not worth the cost.

Now, if the Kingfisher had a 360XL instead of a 360 standard, you'd get no complaints from me. A 360 engine on a 90-ton mech is reasonable, and gives you 65kph, which is a respectable speed for a Clan Assault. But you'd also get a staggering 40.5 tons of pod space and 17 DHS with the XL - instead of merely 24 tons with the standard. That's a HUGE difference.

Is there any amount of quirking PGI could possibly add to the Kingfisher to make up for that lost 16.5 tons? And even if you did add structural quirks to make the mech ridiculously survivable compared to other mechs... you're still running at 65kph in a mech with only 24 tons of pod space. You're a sitting duck without any way to fight back. Unless the quirks you get are in the 100% range (any adjustment less than 20% is largely negligible), even the smallest mechs carry enough alpha damage to remove any extra structure or armor you've been given via quirks in only 1-2 more hits, which increases your survivability to a mere few seconds.

Quirks vs 16.5 tons of pod space. Objectively, which has more value?

Considering that you can do a 61 damage alpha, move 70 kph, with high hardpoints and quirks, what more do you need? If they release the ECM variant, then you can bring 5 cERMLs, 2 cLPLs, 24 DHS, and ECM, with a shield arm, and potential durability/agility quirks. Even without the ECM, and an extra DHS, that would be a strong mech. Not to mention those side torso hardpoints are very high. Frankly, that is nasty, and I would no problem tearing **** up in that, objectively speaking. What kind of weapons do you get for the extra tons? A Gauss essentially? Yeah that would be awesome, but I don't think the slots allow for it anyway. The extra weaponry vs potential quirks could be a toss up, if the agility/durability quirks are good.

And really, with the 17 DHS, its 31 effective tons...

Lasers give diminishing returns because they are so hot, it only has 2 missile hardpoints and 1 or 2 ballistics, so it couldn't boat ballistics anyway. It has Timber Wolf loadouts essentially, which sounds bad at 15 tons heavier, but it has better hardpoint locations, a better poking profile, potentially agility and structure quirks, and more armor.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 17 April 2016 - 05:50 PM.