385 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

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.

thats more of an OmniMech vs BattleMech discussion,
Edit-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 14 December 2016 - 02:47 PM.

[Evil Goof]

No

[Andi Nagasia]

Evil Goof, on 14 December 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

No

no to which, some of our ideas? or no to XL balance? or no you think Engine Tech is currently Fine?

[Y E O N N E]

Andi Nagasia, on 14 December 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

ive always thought of going half way on it,

Solution to Balance? make IS-XL like C-XL, no Death on ST loss,

but what about STD Engines? give them CT Structure Equal to 1/10 their Rating(ie 300STD = +30CT Structure)

but what about LFE Engines? give them CT Structure Equal to 1/20 their Rating(ie 300STD = +15CT Structure)
Edit-

Personally, I prefer the structure solution. The problem we face is that the XL is vulnerable through less-protected side torsos, making it economical to focus a side to gain a kill and, therefore, lowering the time to kill against isXL-equipped 'Mechs. So, really what we need to do is make it less economical to focus a side.

If we take the XL and make it such that equipping it grants you the difference between the total CT hit-points and the total hit-points for a single side to each side, then we make it uneconomical to focus a side, which is now no more vulnerable than the CT. Taking any one of three sides will still kill the 'Mech, but it is no longer a shortcut. It is standardized, it is flavorful, it is fair.

For the STD engine, we do something similar only we add to the CT and put less emphasis on the sides. We also add in a cooling bonus, like increased heat cap. This way, 'Mechs bringing STD engines are not both slow and undergunned for having to soak tonnage into DHS and their slowness doesn't make it easy to dissect the 'Mech.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 14 December 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Bilbo]

There is no way to directly balance them against each other without obsoleting the IS std engines. Fact of the matter is that if the loss of a single side torso didn't kill you, no one would be running anything but XL engines. The weight savings are just that good. I love my AC/20, but if my mechs didn't die to the side torso loss with an XL, I'd never run one again.

[Gentleman Reaper]

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.

Seeing so little thought from one of your posts is unlike you. At this point Omnimechs are a completely separate issue, when you take into account the Clan Battlemechs, which have identical build rules to what the IS employ. Achieving balance between every single piece of equipment is essential if we want to get parity between the best of the IS mechs and the best of the Clan mechs. At that point we can see quirks introduced for the higher-tier clan mechs and more impactful quirks for the lower-tier omnimechs.

[Baulven]

Your suggestion says nothing about anything else that needs done for this such as the massive structure dequirking necessary tutor this to happen. Knowing the law of lazy I don't see the structure and armor being reduced simultaneously, which means clan mechs will be completely pointless for at least a month if not longer.

[Steve Pryde]

Why bothering with getting std IS engines getting obsolet? Clan std engines are obsolet, single heat sinks are obsolet and most mech (builds) without endosteel are obsolet.

At the moment most IS mechs with std engines are feeling undergunned against Clan mechs. With even xl engines you could balance Clan vs IS weaponry way better.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 14 December 2016 - 03:31 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

Stop IS mech's going pop when a side torso is blown and just reduce them to the same speed as if they were legged instead.

[Y E O N N E]

VonBruinwald, on 14 December 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

Stop IS mech's going pop when a side torso is blown and just reduce them to the same speed as if they were legged instead.

Sure, if the cXL also makes you go the same speed as legged.

[Evil Goof]

Andi Nagasia, on 14 December 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

no to which, some of our ideas? or no to XL balance? or no you think Engine Tech is currently Fine?

No to all of it. No to it being brought up. No to it being relevent right now when it comes to being an issue when the main issue it the massive changes that just took place. No to the general navel gazing that this post even inititiates.

I can't say no enough but I also know it will never, ever stop....

[Bilbo]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 December 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Sure, if the cXL also makes you go the same speed as legged.

Even this isn't enough. The difference in space/weight that Clan weapons provide also ties into the issue. I said before I'd give up the ability to run an AC/20 if my torso didn't kill me, but the fact is the clan mechs can run it anyway. They can run multiples of other weapons that IS mechs cannot, because of space, as well. Until they balance the firepower available for the same space/weight the engines just don't matter.

[AEgg]

They should look at:
Battlemech XL vs Battlemech STD
and
Omni locked engine vs Battlemech Optimal engine

NOT IS whatever vs Clan whatever.

You CANNOT balance engines by faction as long as IS omnis and Clan Battlemechs exist. Engine behavior has to depend on the mech type, not the faction. On top of that, the balance between STD and XL in Battlemechs is not good right now. Yes, some mechs use each, but almost no mechs have both as a viable choice.

[ScarecrowES]

Gentleman Reaper, on 14 December 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

Seeing so little thought from one of your posts is unlike you. At this point Omnimechs are a completely separate issue, when you take into account the Clan Battlemechs, which have identical build rules to what the IS employ. Achieving balance between every single piece of equipment is essential if we want to get parity between the best of the IS mechs and the best of the Clan mechs. At that point we can see quirks introduced for the higher-tier clan mechs and more impactful quirks for the lower-tier omnimechs.

The difficulty here, and the thing that's rarely understood in discussions like these... is that you can't achieve parity between Clan Tech and IS tech. One was specifically designed to be superior to the other, and by deciding to follow build rules fairly strictly PGI put themselves in a position where the only means by which they can achieve balance is by differentiation - not parity.

This is why trying to bring IS XL in line with Clan XL can't work. It was never designed to work

Ultimately, when these discussions come up, people tend to focus on just the engines, and ignore everything else that has influence. Wherever Clan tech is superior to its IS counterpart, your only real option is to modify the intangibles to introduce a drawback to the superior tech that's not governed in the base rules and stats. It's like adding duration to Clan lasers or burst fire to Clan ACs to offset their lower weight and crit requirements.

So instead of looking at trying to create parity - which is impossible - instead look at intangibles. Maybe the more fragile IS XLs could produce greater proportional output for a given class, so IS mechs could have greater agility bonuses with XL engines, for instance. Make Clan engines sacrifice something for that durability... don't just make IS engines more tank.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

YES!

This is the biggest single issue of techline (im)balance and hugely throws off other balance considerations.

Just leave cXL like it is and change isXL to have a similar function. Then tie structure quirks to Std. engines (possibly on a scheme of bigger engines get more structure).

Do it this way and so much is sovled. It makes isXL less fragile without making the 'Mech more durable, per se, but pushes Std. further toward durability.

Do it this way and you won't have to worry about driving current or future Omnimechs into the ground (IS Omnis?) or even unlocking their engine.

PGI, please fix this already and do it right!

[K O Z A K]

would this mean clans would then get a useful long range laser and super duper quirks?

[MischiefSC]

We keep making two mistakes -

We keep trying to balance things while having Clans be superior. That doesn't work. It's also not what PGI said they would do.

We keep trying to balance something like XL performance that directly impacts survival and performance at every skill level with mechanics that only impact performance above a certain skill level, like better mobility or weapon quirks. A terribad with an CXL is still going to survive longer to get lucky hits in than a terribad with an IS XL. Full stop. End of story. Until they're surviving the same length of time no other balance factor is going to be functionally relevant.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

MischiefSC, on 14 December 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

We keep making two mistakes -

We keep trying to balance things while having Clans be superior. That doesn't work. It's also not what PGI said they would do.

We keep trying to balance something like XL performance that directly impacts survival and performance at every skill level with mechanics that only impact performance above a certain skill level, like better mobility or weapon quirks. A terribad with an CXL is still going to survive longer to get lucky hits in than a terribad with an IS XL. Full stop. End of story. Until they're surviving the same length of time no other balance factor is going to be functionally relevant.

This is absolutely true.

The engine disparity is a foundational balance problem. Until it is resolved, other things cannot be clearly balanced.

isXL and cXL don't need to have exact parity, but they do need to follow the same rules.

And: NO! cXL doesn't need changing. cXL is exactly as it should be.

[AEgg]

ScarecrowES, on 14 December 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

-snip-

So instead of looking at trying to create parity - which is impossible - instead look at intangibles. Maybe the more fragile IS XLs could produce greater proportional output for a given class, so IS mechs could have greater agility bonuses with XL engines, for instance. Make Clan engines sacrifice something for that durability... don't just make IS engines more tank.

Pretty much this. Make Battlemech XL better, without being more durable. There's no reason to have a choice if one side or the other doesn't provide enough of a benefit.

Making battlemech XL more durable is dumb. It doesn't solve the problem, it gives up on it entirely.

MischiefSC, on 14 December 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

We keep making two mistakes -

We keep trying to balance things while having Clans be superior. That doesn't work. It's also not what PGI said they would do.

We keep trying to balance something like XL performance that directly impacts survival and performance at every skill level with mechanics that only impact performance above a certain skill level, like better mobility or weapon quirks. A terribad with an CXL is still going to survive longer to get lucky hits in than a terribad with an IS XL. Full stop. End of story. Until they're surviving the same length of time no other balance factor is going to be functionally relevant.

Not true. What if battlemech XL engines caused your weapons to do double damage? That would certainly be enough to make up for the downside, no matter how bad you were.


As I see it, there are two viable choices:
1. Give up. Either give IS mechs durability buffs that equate to it or just flat out make IS STD, IS XL, and Clan XL engines identical.
2. Don't give up. Widen the gap between STD and XL in battlemechs, give XL a substantial offensive buff of some kind, and give STD even higher structure and/or armor buffs.
2b: Make STD vs XL attributes a factor of battlemech/omni, not clan/IS. There is absolutely no way around this one if we want STD and XL to both be viable choices. (The alternative is obviously terrible: Every clan battlemech takes XL and every IS omni is screwed)

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Here it is:

We have an engine disparity that means cXL survivability AND loadout is superior to other choices.

To make up for that disparity we have Quirks (AKA, band-aids)

We want to make all choices viable. That means we have to make changes somewhere.

Since cXL has set the benchmark for performance, we have to make changes that bring isXL, Std. and (future) LFE up to par with it. Since LFE is futuretech, lets leave it out for now (but, with slight changes it could fit in the continuum).

If we take isXL and Std. and give them both structure buffs, we come full circle to where we are now: Quirks (AKA bandaids). It works, but it really doesn't address the underlying issue. Also, when you do lose that ST while running your uber-Quirked isXL, you still die. That means we have to do exactly as with Quirks now: reevaluate for geometry, hardpoints and other equipment. Even then, there will never be consensus as to what is a "fair amount" of durability buffs on isXL.

Therefore it's still not balanced and you're back where you started.

So, a better solution is the one that effectively solves the problem permanently.

That solution is to make isXL function like cXL and to push Std. further into the realm of durability by giving that option, and only that option, durability buffs.

Do this and the problem is solved forever and other balance issues are less muddied, meaning that we can go on to further balance considerations with confidence!

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 14 December 2016 - 06:40 PM.