385 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

This is a Simple Poll Topic,

Do you think PGI should look at IS-XL & C-XL and work to Balance them?
this is just a Topic on If you think they should look into Balancing them,
or do you think they are Fine as they Currently Are?

(VOTE NOW)


(Poll Notes)
im keeping Opinions out of the Poll, as to just see how people feel about XL Balance,
if more People feel XL balance is currently good, or if XL Balance may need some work,

we all may have Different ideas on how they should / Could be Balanced,
if you have an idea Please Discuss your Ideas below,

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Poll Link-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 14 December 2016 - 01:45 PM.

[RestosIII]

Yes. I honestly believe that ATM, IS XL shouldn't be an instant death from a ST loss. Just make it have a larger penalty that Clan XL in regards to movement penalties.

[mogs01gt]

Where is the poll?

There shouldnt be a difference at all between the XL engines. That is what having a balanced game means..

[Andi Nagasia]

mogs01gt, on 14 December 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

Where is the poll?

There shouldnt be a difference at all between the XL engines. That is what having a balanced game means..

Just linked it, should be working now,


Edit-
Personally ive always thought of going half way on it,

1) Solution to Balance? make IS-XL like C-XL, no Death on ST loss,
2) but what about STD Engines? give them CT Structure Equal to 1/10 their Rating(ie 300STD = +30CT Structure)
3) but what about LFE Engines? give them CT Structure Equal to 1/20 their Rating(ie 300STD = +15CT Structure)

we know they can Mod Stats with Equipment because thats what Clan TCs do,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 14 December 2016 - 02:46 PM.

[Commoners]

Make engine critical hits matter like they do in tabletop. A clan mech can still lose a side just fine, but if they take a critical hit on the engine in the other shoulder or the CT they pop. They remain survivable and significantly better than IS and their instant death on shoulder loss, but they don't require full destruction of both sides.

It would also make standard engines in clan battlemechs an actual option for superior survivability instead of something you throw in for the sake of weird gimmicks where you somehow manage to fill out all the crit slots in the side torsos.

Edited by Commoners, 14 December 2016 - 01:47 PM.

[Metus regem]

As much as I like keeping things close to the TT, with out the mitigation of random hit location, IS XL engines are over penalized in the environment we have currently with pin-point perfect convergence weapon systems, this is just happens to be one of those things that does not translate well from TT to the current FPS environment we have to work with in.

[C E Dwyer]

I think the game is so far removed from the Franchise, that another change for the sake of game balance doesn't matter two hoots, as long as changes are going to bring some parity.

[Y E O N N E]

RestosIII, on 14 December 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

Yes. I honestly believe that ATM, IS XL shouldn't be an instant death from a ST loss. Just make it have a larger penalty that Clan XL in regards to movement penalties.

While that is better for kaboom reasons, why even bother with that arbitrary extra penalty? What game play purpose does that serve? Managing bigger and heavier equipment with net worse performance isn't enough?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 14 December 2016 - 02:02 PM.

[AnTi90d]

I'm torn on the issue. I voted YES because I do think that something needs to happen.

I'd much rather see LightFusionEngines make it into the game, with their 2 crit slots per torso, that would function like Clan XL engines that were 50% heavier..

If we had IS XL engines survive past one side torso check, I think they'd have to spend a lot of time rebalancing IS side torso structure quirks. It just seems so much easier, IMO, to add LFEs.

..and, hey, they could add XXL engines for the Clans. It wouldn't be really practical for most builds, but I think having the option to run one would be good for the game and variety's sake.

[Graugger]

Everything in the game seems perfectly balanced atm.

[Bradigus]

Making IS XL engines not die from a side torso loss would invalidate both standard engines and potential light fusion engines. Making Clan XL engines die from a side torso loss would invalidate most of the clan stable.

The problems are bigger than just "Loss of side torso = death y/n?"

One major problem stems from the ability for all weapons in this game to achieve perfect, pin point convergence on a torso section from any range. So long as your weapon can deal damage to the thing you're targeting, you will damage that component. While this allows for challenging and somewhat enjoyable precision dismantling of your target, it's also a heavy blow for the survivability of the Inner Sphere XL Engine.

[Gentleman Reaper]

STD (both IS and Clan): 30-35% CT structure bonus

isXL: 20-25% ST structure bonus

cXL: Unchanged

LFE: No speed or heat penalty for losing side torso

I swear, if I hear one more person say that isXL should survive a torso loss I'm gonna bust a capillary. As an IS player I don't want this to happen, why break lore when it's significantly easier and more logical to give the XL more durability.

[RestosIII]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 December 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

While that is better for kaboom reasons, why even bother with that arbitrary extra penalty? What game play purpose does that serve? Managing bigger and heavier equipment with net worse performance isn't enough?

A mixture of not wanting to make the STD engine completely worthless, and still appease some of the people that really care about the fact that there is a difference in crit slots/TT. Mostly the STD engine thing though.

[XtremWarrior]

Gentleman Reaper, on 14 December 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

STD (both IS and Clan): 30-35% CT structure bonus

isXL: 20-25% ST structure bonus

cXL: Unchanged

LFE: No speed or heat penalty for losing side torso

I swear, if I hear one more person say that isXL should survive a torso loss I'm gonna bust a capillary. As an IS player I don't want this to happen, why break lore when it's significantly easier and more logical to give the XL more durability.

This. This so much.

[Deathlike]

Commoners, on 14 December 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Make engine critical hits matter like they do in tabletop. A clan mech can still lose a side just fine, but if they take a critical hit on the engine in the other shoulder or the CT they pop. They remain survivable and significantly better than IS and their instant death on shoulder loss, but they don't require full destruction of both sides.

It would also make standard engines in clan battlemechs an actual option for superior survivability instead of something you throw in for the sake of weird gimmicks where you somehow manage to fill out all the crit slots in the side torsos.

This is a TTK reduction regardless of tech.

That's not really a good thing at this point.

[ScarecrowES]

Sure, balance IS and Clan XL engines, and then give clan omnis the ability to change engine size, and swap armor and internals at will. I mean, if we're trying to bring actual parity between the two. It seems we forget all the other awesome things IS mechs get that Clan omnis don't in trade for that stronger XL. Fair is fair.

[Mole]

I'm really hung on this issue. Part of me wants to say that we should make IS XLs require both side torsos just like Clans but on the other hand, wouldn't that almost completely obsolete STD engines? I can only think of four 'mechs that I own that, were this the case, I would still bring STD engines in. Those 'mechs are my Hunchback, because it runs a max STD engine with its loadout very well, no reason to go XL, my Rifleman, same reason as the Hunchback, and my Marauder and Atlas because without a STD engine they cannot fit their side torso AC/20s.

[Y E O N N E]

RestosIII, on 14 December 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

A mixture of not wanting to make the STD engine completely worthless, and still appease some of the people that really care about the fact that there is a difference in crit slots/TT. Most lyrics the STD engine thing though.

The STD engine is already completely useless, only effectively taken on 'Mechs with such low engine caps that they can't take advantage of the XL anyway. Can't go faster, can't get more guns or cooling because slots.

The STD engine is really a separate issue.

[Carl Vickers]

Re-post from yesterday.

Carl Vickers, on 13 December 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

I would make the IS XL not go pop on ST loss and keep with the current PGI thinking of Clans equipment weigh less and use less crit slots by keeping the IS XL using 3 side torsi slots and make them take a 15% loss to speed and agility, less than what the clans take for a ST loss. Evens out nicely.

[Metus regem]

ScarecrowES, on 14 December 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

Sure, balance IS and Clan XL engines, and then give clan omnis the ability to change engine size, and swap armor and internals at will. I mean, if we're trying to bring actual parity between the two. It seems we forget all the other awesome things IS mechs get that Clan omnis don't in trade for that stronger XL. Fair is fair.

That debate for Clan Omni's can wait until we see what PGI would do with IS Omni's.

That being said, Clan Battlemechs can do what IS Battlemechs can, in terms of swapping armour, internal or Heat Sink types, and do it for a nominal cost.