170 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Viktor Drake, on 25 August 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

I always get a kick out of this. Do you seriously believe that Clan OmniMechs get more versatility than IS mechs? I mean the Warhawk has an entire torso of locked DHS whether you want them or not. The Stormcrow has like 3 open DHS slots in its engine that can't be filled because they are locked. Most people think the Madcat is over-engined but it can't swap out it engine for a smaller one. Direwolf has more free tonnage than it often knows what to do with and often would benefit from mounting a standard 300 engine but can't do it. The only thing Clan OmniMechs can do is shift around often very, very limited hardpoints. I mean I would absolutely love to mount 2 ER ML on both my Adders arms but guess what, you can't mount more than 1 Energy weapon on each arm. How it that any less restrictive than IS mechs? All I can say is the Clan IIC versions are a massive breath of fresh air for Clanner who actually longed for the customization Clan mechs are suppose to be known for.

Yes, and because of that they can undertake different roles, a LRM boat, a Dakka build, a long-range sniper build, in between, seriously do you get that freedom with IS? So far i only know Kodiak and Highlander to be an IS Hybrid, but the majority can change omnipods and so to have the freedom change roles, and that is why they are far more versatile. Just buy a mech center torso, and the buy other omnipods to change the hardpoints and what you can put inside, whereas you need to buy a whole another mech for IS for it's better variant suited for such a role.

Viktor Drake, on 25 August 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

As to IS XLs, honestly yes it is an issue but more of a convience thing than anything else. I tend to avoid IS mechs in most cases because I don't want to deal with having to try to fit a competitive build into a mech with a standard engine as oppose to having to baby my side torsos when using an XL. Honestly I don't necessarily feel it is as much a huge disadvantage as it is a royal pain to have to be so careful once the armor has been stripped because generally my IS mechs have the same numbers and kill counts as my Clan mechs. In fact, some of my XL mounted IS mechs are my top performers.

Have you tried XL on an assault? What about a King-Crab?

MauttyKoray, on 25 August 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

I agree that it is imbalanced currently, but LFE will be the IS counterpart to Clan XL (yes they need to add it I know, I really wish they would as well as the filler weapons for IS to remove the disparity between the sides) but removing the identity of the IS XL is a bad choice. The reason for taking it is risk/rewards, it has the low survivability of torso loss, but it generates a massive weight bonus.

You know, i'm not advocating of entirely removing the risk right? You still die from two torso destruction with XL (as my suggestion), versus only Center-torso destruction with Standard-engine. With 3 critical slots per side torso, that is also much more vulnerable than just 2 critical slots per side-torso as the Clan.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 25 August 2016 - 03:01 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

MauttyKoray, on 25 August 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

No...please stop trying to balance everything 1-1. There is literally no point in having IS/Clans if everything is evenly balanced.

I agree that it is imbalanced currently, but LFE will be the IS counterpart to Clan XL (yes they need to add it I know, I really wish they would as well as the filler weapons for IS to remove the disparity between the sides) but removing the identity of the IS XL is a bad choice. The reason for taking it is risk/rewards, it has the low survivability of torso loss, but it generates a massive weight bonus.

Once they add LFE (yes I know its not 'right now' but hopefully they will) you will have 3 choices with the STD, an XL with high savings but reduced survivability, and then the LFE will take the mid-ground with less weight savings but survivability comparable to the Clan XL.

Now something along the lines of say, having the IS XL give a 'bonus' to mechs that equip it, something like +5-10 structure on the STs? Maybe... would have to be tested.

I will remember to copy the post. The downtime ate my last one.. uggh...see if I remember what I was typing....

Anyhow, no one is asking for the isXL to be identical to the cXL, only to have the same survivibility but with greater penalties when one side torso is loss.

Hmm.. bah..

Take a Timberwolf and its side torsos, both have to be taken out to take out the T-wolf, not just one.

T-Wolf -front loaded armor
ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS , CT 88/4 armor / 46 IS

Marauder w/isXL
ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 8qIS, CT 88/4 / 46 IS + 12qIS

To take out a T-wolf w 2*ST = 2*60+2*32 = 184pts of damage (both side torsos)
To take out a Marauder w/1ST = 60+32+8 = 100pts of damage (only one side torso w/isXL)


Or Orion vs Orion IIC
Orion IIC ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 8qIS , CT 88/4 armor / 46 IS +12qIS

Orion ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 16qIS, CT 88/4 / 46 IS + 23qIS

To take out a Orion IIC w/2*ST = 2*60+2*40 = 200pts of damage (both side torsos)
To take out a Orion w/1*ST = 60+32+16 = 108pts of damage (only one side torso w/isXL)

It takes almost 2x as much damage to kill a mech/omni w/cXL vs mech/timeline omni w/isXL because atm only one torso needs to be focused down on for the isXL.

That is the discrepancy between the two techs, more than anything else. Never mind the IS omni mechs, if PGI sets it up like the Clan omnis, even with IS quirks, will have their ST fired on as it will be a guarantee kill. Structural quirks does not even make it close.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 25 August 2016 - 05:49 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

It's not about straight durability. If the Mech is capable at spreading damage and the weapons payload enabled by the XL is dangerous enough, then the draw-back of taking an IS XL becomes a worthwhile risk.

[Drunken Skull]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, I didn't make it through all 9 pages.

I think the Engine Critical/death mechanic/penalty for the IS XL Engines is too harsh, given that it was again, another direct implementation of a TT mechanic. Many of the TT game mechanics are centered around a commander vs commander role, where MWO is Pilot vs Pilot.

The mechanic needs to be re-worked so that it is a little more forgiving to a single side torso loss. I'd be happy if the Mech lost 50% of it's Engine Heat Sinks and also lost it's ability to move fast(similar to it being legged). This would be a far better mechanic than the insta-death we have now when a side torso is lost.

Also, when using IS XL Engines, it is important to pad out all of the critical slots in the side torso's with components that can take damage, as it will greatly increase the statistical chance of the XL surviving.

Edited by Drunken Skull, 26 August 2016 - 01:56 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 August 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

It's not about straight durability. If the Mech is capable at spreading damage and the weapons payload enabled by the XL is dangerous enough, then the draw-back of taking an IS XL becomes a worthwhile risk.

So, should Clan battlemechs be disabled the same way, with the loss of a side torso? We had apple and oranges with IS battlemechs and Clan omnimechs but no more. Now we have red apples and granny smith apples, eventually we may have IS omni mechs, most that do come with isXL engines. So they will be taken down just like IS battlemechs with the loss of one side torso. Omni and Clan Battlemechs can also torso twist and spread damage.

And again in a game where some of the TT rules do not translate well into a PC FPS environment where many of the OTHER rules critical to the effect are NOT present, basically half-assing it. As for weapon payload, (chuckles) really?

It sorta made sense when it was just IS mechs, STD vs XL, and once a mech's loadout was determined and/or speed, the call was made to target a side torso. It was not made clear that there would be no critical engine hits ever, PGI simply noted that engines were given x amount of HP but no effect when hit. But once Clans and their XL engines were introduced, the isXL should have been changed at that time or when cXL were given penalties for loss of side torso, since then PGI could put them on the same playing field but with different penalties.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 26 August 2016 - 03:17 PM.

[RagingOyster]

You hit the nail on the head.

Personally, I never ever use XL engines on my front line brawlers (like my Atlai or King Crabs).

In my opinion, an XL engine is perfect for medium or light mechs, plus some fast heavies, as it allows you to pack much more firepower and armor than a STD would allow but you have the mobility to avoid having a side torso focused down easily.

Clan XL, on the other hand, are a no-brainer. Always take (I'm not sure if you even can go STD on the iic mechs, but there's absolutely no reason to do so)

[Y E O N N E]

Tarl Cabot, on 26 August 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

So, should Clan battlemechs be disabled the same way, with the loss of a side torso? We had apple and oranges with IS battlemechs and Clan omnimechs but no more. Now we have red apples and granny smith apples, eventually we may have IS omni mechs, most that do come with isXL engines. So they will be taken down just like IS battlemechs with the loss of one side torso. Omni and Clan Battlemechs can also torso twist and spread damage.

And again in a game where some of the TT rules do not translate well into a PC FPS environment where many of the OTHER rules critical to the effect are NOT present, basically half-assing it. As for weapon payload, (chuckles) really?

It sorta made sense when it was just IS mechs, STD vs XL, and once a mech's loadout was determined and/or speed, the call was made to target a side torso. It was not made clear that there would be no critical engine hits ever, PGI simply noted that engines were given x amount of HP but no effect when hit. But once Clans and their XL engines were introduced, the isXL should have been changed at that time or when cXL were given penalties for loss of side torso, since then PGI could put them on the same playing field but with different penalties.

It doesn't translate well because the TT rules stacked every single possible advantage in favor of the Clans and tried to use BV to even the playing field.

Here, we don't necessarily do that. When IS had incredible quirks, were their XL engines a liability? No, they wiped the floor with the Clans and all of them were running XL. They did this because they got just enough durability bonus to make them more directly survivable, sure, but the real key was the dramatically improved weapons, specifically energy range and duration that reduced exposure to the extent that the IS XL was turned from a liability into an asset.

So that's all that needs to happen: Inner Sphere equipment needs to get better so that when you bring an XL, your offensive capabilities are enough to mitigate that one way or another.

Alternatively, PGI needs to create identities for each side. Clans, IMO, seem like they should be all about close-quarters dueling based on their values. And yet, they are also superior at long range...how very Mary Sue of them. There are no range brackets or other battlefield roles where the IS can inherently claim to be the dominant player and that needs to change.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

RagingOyster, on 26 August 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Clan XL, on the other hand, are a no-brainer. Always take (I'm not sure if you even can go STD on the iic mechs, but there's absolutely no reason to do so)

You can take STD on IIC mechs, The only reason to do so is if your build involves two gauss in the same side.

[Y E O N N E]

Rouken Vordermark, on 26 August 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

You can take STD on IIC mechs, The only reason to do so is if your build involves two gauss in the same side.

Which would be silly for many reasons, one of which is because one Goose going poof is liable to also take out the other Goose.

Also heavy, slow, etc.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

So that's all that needs to happen: Inner Sphere equipment needs to get better so that when you bring an XL, your offensive capabilities are enough to mitigate that one way or another.

Simply noting that when a version of the Energy Draw goes live, that is an attempt to cap alphas, no more working around GH 1.0 weapon synergy (LL/ML, SRM/ML or SRM/MPL) that goes out the door. But then, look at the FP map, being run by the units that will use what advantage there is, and stack up on that. But then all of those IS quirks have been reduced or removed.

Do not forgot that the waves of Black Knights occurred primarily after they became available for C-Bills and when their structural/weapon quirks were at the highest, though the original quirks were at their lowest. And those waves were primarily merc units that bounce back and forth between the factions, units that actually communicate, focus fire on targets, on targets that had to revamp their line up and their builds.

And for most of the mechs that can get away with using a STD engine with similar load outs, those structural quirks simply allowed it to soak a little more damage before losing the equipment on that side. The question is, would you prefer your adversary to continue unhindered when it loses a side torso that you thought should have had an XL in it, or would you prefer the mech to be using an isXL, and once that side torso is gone, it being hit with a movement/heat penalty, or do you really prefer the easier death?

• Headshot- destroyed same for both techs
  
• Double leg - same
  
• CT - same for all engines
  
• One Side torso - isXL - destroyed / cXL - originally no penalty, then heat penalty and later heat/movement penalty but not destroyed - same advantages for both engines in same weight savings, only difference is 1 less engine slot on each side for cXL.
  
• Two Side torso - cXL -destroyed. wait, that isXL mech is already dead with only One side torso removed.
  
• No actual engine crits in this game.

PGI could, if they follow their own lead with the Gauss Rifle in ED/PTS-2, lower the health on all Clan equipment, less slots used, less health..


That would certainly add a different flavor, but Clan mechs would still be running around, /shrugs....


Just a reminder, the Orion IIC mechs would only have to target one side torso if the IS Orion is using an isXL. If it does not, it would lack the payload to equip a similar load out and be even slower than its Clan cousin.

Quote

Or Orion vs Orion IIC
Orion IIC ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 8qIS , CT 88/4 armor / 46 IS +12qIS

Orion ST - 60/4 armor / 32 IS + 16qIS, CT 88/4 / 46 IS + 23qIS

To take out a Orion IIC w/2*ST = 2*60+2*40 = 200pts of damage (both side torsos)
To take out a Orion w/1*ST = 60+32+16 = 108pts of damage (only one side torso w/isXL)

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 August 2016 - 02:19 PM.

[SamsungNinja]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

No, I'm saying limiting it to 2 CT hardpoints is absolutely moronic,

Hey, leave my Spider-5V out of this. Touch that 'mech and I will find you.