385 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 15 December 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

...in a computer game

problem is not to die - problem is that the other guy had to die first

General George S. Patton said:

No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb ******* die for his country.

Words to live by, no matter the game or real life.

[MechaBattler]

Lykaon, on 15 December 2016 - 01:30 AM, said:

Does not take into account the compounding advantages of clan equipment.

Clan XL is half the weight LFE is two thirds the weight and takes the same space therefore the clans will get more engine for the mass/crits expended and as a result faster more agile mechs improving defense OR more guns and more cooling for better offense.

Add to that 2/3 crit space DHS
And half tonnage LRMS and SRMs
Lighter more compact ballistics
half crit endo steel and ferro fibrious

Get the picture? Equalizing XL egines is a closer equivilent balance than adding in the LFE.

Once quirks are tossed out with the upcoming pilot trees what makes an Inner Shere mech with a heavier engine with heavier bulkier weapons twice the crit cost for endo steel and universally shorter ranged energy weapons a viable option?

That's why I said also buff it's HP. As well as the IS XL and even the standard engine.

Also they're not tossing quirks wholesale. The under performing mechs are keeping theirs.

[Metus regem]

MechaBattler, on 15 December 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

That's why I said also buff it's HP. As well as the IS XL and even the standard engine.

Also they're not tossing quirks wholesale. The under performing mechs are keeping theirs.

But the question for the "performing" or "over performing" IS mechs, are those numbers being seen / reached due to the quirks? Would the Warhammer or Grasshopper be as good with out their quirks?

[Lily from animove]

my take on engines would differ,

first I would remove the twist relation between ngien size and mech and bas eit sololy on weight + geometry to balance bad geometry mechs vs good gemoetry ones.
This will help STD engines to compete more with the XL's by erasing the possibility of a bigger XL having more survivability vs a smaller STD having just the ST los survivability.

Second Part is, I would give the engines some bonus

STD: weight of the mech/5 structure on CT.
is XL:weigth of the mech/5 Structure per ST
xlan XL 0

this grants the IS XL some more survivability on mechs sacled by the ecmhs weight class. Yet it makes the STD engine a proper chocie for a durable mech by not having both downsides of weight and mobility.
STD is now some real durable stuff.
Clan XL gets the 2 torsi loss durability.

[dario03]

I think you need more options or detail for the poll. Some ISXL mechs are fine because of quirks some are not. So if the question is should ISXL be the same as CXL, I vote no. If its should they do a balance patch that takes everything into account then my answer is yes.

With the way it is currently set up I guess I will vote no since in a later post you said no ST death for ISXL, and I don't think that is needed.

[MechaBattler]

Metus regem, on 15 December 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

But the question for the "performing" or "over performing" IS mechs, are those numbers being seen / reached due to the quirks? Would the Warhammer or Grasshopper be as good with out their quirks?

I don't know to what extent they're doing it. So we'll have to wait and see. It'll be ridiculous if they seriously think that the skill tree change is somehow going even the playing field. There will be even less IS queuing up if they push the gap further.

[Metus regem]

MechaBattler, on 15 December 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

I don't know to what extent they're doing it. So we'll have to wait and see. It'll be ridiculous if they seriously think that the skill tree change is somehow going even the playing field. There will be even less IS queuing up if they push the gap further.

Yup, it really makes me wonder where or rather whom PGI gets their match data from, as it often does not match what the players actually see.

[Mcgral18]

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. Mostly the STD engine thing though.

That's why you buff it separately.

It currently competes with the Clam XL, and is that any comparison?
No

Structure (CT, STs) to non-marginal degrees
Agility, due to generally smaller sizes, also promoting more effective twisting/survivability
Cooling, because why not

Sjorpha, on 15 December 2016 - 06:48 AM, said:

I've seen this suggestion several times, i just don't understand why the penalty should be larger for IS?

If anything the penalty should be smaller to compensate for the extra critspace.

We need to get rid of the stupid idea that clan tech has to be strictly better.

Mech the dane is spot on as usual, except i actually want balanced tech and distinct faction rather than giving up and letting both sides use all mechs.

Generally to appease the Clammers and get it into the game
Remove it after a balancing patch...but that hasn't really work out

Dane's argument is right, but his solution is hot garbage

[Angel of Annihilation]

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..

A difference is fine but I don't believe the difference should be dying or not dying. That is too big a difference so I would like to see a change.

However, I would not support anything that results in a nerf like making it so that Clan mechs also suffer instant death when losing a side torso just to satisfy IS pilots. Instead I would like to see a buff to IS XLs. I just posted a thread proposing them remove death from IS XL and then remove and transfer the debuff Clan XLs have associated with them over to the IS mechs.

With that we still have a difference, both sides get buffed and everyone wins.

[Y E O N N E]

The only thing that matters is that the expected TTK for an isXL 'Mech of a given shape and mass is the same as a Clan 'Mech of a given shape and mass.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 15 December 2016 - 10:29 AM.

[Lykaon]

Hades Trooper, on 15 December 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

sure, lets change the IS XL engine, but while your at it, lets also talk about fixed, heatsinks, fixed internals, fixed armour, fixed jump jets, and lower amounts of weapons before incurring ghost heat. then we can talk about IS xl engines.

You friggin IS players want everything and give nothing. Your opinions as a group are so one eyed that everything is useless suggestions due to the lack of understanding how balance is achieved.

Well let me look at my clan BATTLEmechs.

No fixed components on those at all.

What mech is widely considered the best in show for assaults (and best overall in the whole game) The Kodiak a Clan BATTLEmech.

What mech is widely considered the best heavy? a Timberwolf a Clan OMNImech.

Best medium? Hunchback IIc a Clan BATTLEmech followed closely by the Stormcrow a Clan OMNImech.

Best Light? Arctic cheetah a Clan OMNImech followed closely by the Jenner IIc a Clan BATTLEmech.

As more and more Clan BATTLEmechs are added the argument for unlocking OMNImechs become less and less relivant.

Our Clan Battlemechs have all the cake and eat it too. No argument there. If you want to talk quirks...go look at the future plans for the new skill trees that are rapidly approaching feature.
Quirks are quickly becoming irrelivent to the topic. Ghostheat? Also going by the wayside to be replaced with a universal energy draw mechanic.


Make no mistake if you think you're a hotshot mechwarrior as a clan pilot a significant amount of that is tech crutch elevating your score.

I can see it clearly when I hop between factions. I use both eyes and I have seen obvious advantages to Clantech.

[AEgg]

MischiefSC, on 14 December 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

Except the CXL doesn't have the durability flaw.

That's the entire, total and complete point. By having CXLs provide all the benefits without the flaw you are simply giving Clan mechs half their engines weight in free tonnage in addition to smaller, lighter weapons.

The ideal goal?

Balance the tech, then unlock Omnimechs. Give Clans STD engine options comparable to the IS ones so the choice between a STD with great durability or an XL with more tonnage (but that still survives ST loss) exists for both. You can vary that amount and relative benefits the same way that CLPLs have 2x the range, less tonnage and space and more damage but more heat and longer burn than IS LPLs. However their principle is the same.

You need to balance factor to factor. Survivability to survivability or else you make the same failures we keep making; giving IS quirks doesn't offset Clan XL survivability. It never did. Not until you pass a sufficient skill threshold to leverage those quirks effectively. CXL is just a blanket survivability buff for all Clan mechs relative to IS mechs.

Do you get what I'm saying here? We keep not balancing apples to apples, we keep trying to balance apples to the way a dock {LT-MOB-25} its head when you say something it doesn't understand in Vietnamese. That's never going to have 'balance'. Just a progressively more and more confused dog and a progressively more and more awkwardly mutilated apple.

We need to let go of the Clans are Superior mentality. We need to burn it with nuclear fire. If you want to win more and kill more mechs you need to do it by being better at the game, not demanding the game balance change to make it so are more likely to do so.

You totally missed my point.

We CANNOT have engines be "clan vs IS". Engine balance HAS to be "Omni vs Battlemech". Anything else is not going to work unless all engines are basically identical. You can't give one side a choice and not the other side unless the choices are equivalent or nonexistent because one is worthless.

AFTER you give all battlemech XL death on ST loss and all Omnis current behavior, THEN you can start trying to balance XL vs Omni-XL. It's much easier then. Just give XL an upside (since right now it has none), and make STD better.

Chuck Jager, on 15 December 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

If BT never existed and we were making an online game the XL engine idea with differences between the two factions would be the stupidest online game idea ever.
-snip-

Exactly.

We have two different types of mechs, one can choose engines the other cannot. Obviously, THAT is what has to decide how engines function. (Unless we remove the choice altogether).

[LordNothing]

both sides need more engine options. clan omnis can change engine but with a narrower array of engine classes +/- 25 engine rating from stock and have the option to run std or clanxl. is xl needs some new mechanics or a 3rd alternative, like lfe. maybe an 'engine mount upgrade' to move two st crits to the ct so you can run with a side missing possibly coming with the expense of a slightly higher crit chance ct, lower performance engine heat sinks, and loosing whatever ct hardpoints you had (it would also make it possible to run a torso ac20 with an xl).

Edited by LordNothing, 15 December 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[Josh Seles]

I voted yes in the poll because I feel that the tech gap between Clan and IS needs to be closed. I would also like to see it done in a lore-friendly way.

I can't say I want the IS XL engine to survive a side torso loss, but I still want this debate to end as much as anyone. I also don't think durability quirks are the answer either, because this debate is still going. From what I've seen so far, the issue is the tech gap between Clan and IS, where the Clans have a weight-saving engine that can survive a side torso loss, while IS does not.

My solution: http://www.sarna.net..._Engine_-_Light
Problem solved. An IS-tech, weight-saving engine that can survive a side torso loss. Functionally identical to a Clan XL, but with 75% weight savings vs. standard engines instead of an XL's 50%. Clan XL nerfs can be applied as well, (decreased cooling, loss of speed). I could even accept the exact same nerfs here as on a Clan XL.

[AEgg]

Do we all even have the same goals? I see the ideal as the following:

Battlemech XL - Most firepower, least durability
Omni XL/Omni STD/Battlemech LFE - Middle range firepower and durability
Battlemech STD - Least firepower, most durability

All valid choices. The extra firepower for XL engines is supposed to come from weight reduction. Obviously IS XL currently isn't any better at this than Clan XL despite it having lower durability, and that needs fixed. So buff XL and STD and leave Omni engines alone. Then tie engine behavior to Omni vs Battlemech because otherwise clan battlemechs and IS omnis break everything.

Edited by AEgg, 15 December 2016 - 04:47 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Its fixed hard points with flexible weapons and engine vs. flexible hard points with flexible weapons and fixed engines. IS was never supposed to have flexible anything. I get the change to be more appealing but once you start adding all the IS variants you can get the hard points you want most of the time. I would rather earn changes granted by the pilot skill tree. Give me something to grind like an engine swap or changed hard points. Modifying your mech could have been what OMG I cant be-leave i'm typing this.. part of the end game.

Clans have clearly been shafted multiple times. Clan IS balance issues where articulated multiple times since Nov 2011. Its going to keep happening. it can't be fixed only covered up. Remove flexible IS weapons is the only reasonable option when removing death on IS XL loss. Armor and internals buffs are the same as damage nerfs to clan tech. Sorry but reduced flexibility is the only answer. I run an XL in my catapult and i dam well know the risque and rewards. I run a much larger engine and massive amounts of ammo for 2x lrm 10's

For a given chassis how many variations exist for IS... lots. Clan only has one because that's the point of omni. PGI created minor variants to give players something to grind. When IS was given flexible weapons with lots of variants it dilutes clan advantage. That was in 2011.

Should PGI look at IS/ clan engine balance.... only in the context of rebuilding the game. Removing IS xl torso death is a massive advantage for IS. Just give torso death to clan tech and be done with it.

The issue with MWO has been and always will be linked magically accurate PP FLD interacting with mech scaling/geometry and the lack of hit location armor co-factors correcting the removal of the 2d6 hit location roll.

[Lanancuras]

I'm okay with improving the balance between IS and Clan XL engines but I'd rather have IS XL engines work like Clan XL Engines than the other way around.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I understand that some of you out there don't want IS and Clan techlines to be the "same" in any way, shape or form. There is validity in the idea of them being differentiated.

But being differentiated does not necessarily mean following different rules.

Remember, Clantech is supposed to be an advancement on what the IS has, not wholly separate technology. Point-in-case, the 3-crit rule.

In TT, it's not that cXL and isXL operated under different destruction conditions; quite the opposite: they both operated under a simple across-the-board rule that said "if you lose 3 engine criticals, your 'Mech is destroyed". It just happens that isXL has three in 1 ST.

If we applied the 3-crit rule in MWO, this conversation would not be happening. Clan XL would be objectively better, but not by nearly the current margin and would be much more fragile than now.

What we have now is an unfortunate and very poor imitation of the 3-crit rule.

Even in MWO as now, most other gear functions nearly the same way for both techlines. Lasers all generate heat, have a range and a beam duration. ACs all spit out projectiles that allocate damage where they hit.

These comparisons are not perfect, they are differentiated between techlines. Nonetheless, the functions are all counterparts.

The isXL/cXL disparity is not thus. They are not counterparts at all and follow wholly different functional rules where one is clearly and objectively better than the other. And this is the single biggest unbalancing factor between the techlines: this uneven application of rules.

For all those suggesting more of X or more of Y, that is no different than Quirks and ultimately doesn't solve the issue because it leads us back to where we are now.

For those of you suggesting LFE is the key, it isn't. It adds another option, but leaves all options still objectively inferior to cXL. Should we add it? Maybe. Does it solve the problem? No, it doesn't even address it.

For those of you suggesting more complex and convoluted "solutions". Remember, that complexity adds exponential opportunity for unforeseen consequences and further difficulties.

Having considered that the best solution is that which solves the problem most effectively without creating further difficulties, I must state (once again), the best solution is to let isXL function like cXL and survive 1 ST loss and simultaneously give durability buffs to Std. engines.

This solution really is the best.

[Lily from animove]

Lykaon, on 15 December 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

Well let me look at my clan BATTLEmechs.

No fixed components on those at all.

What mech is widely considered the best in show for assaults (and best overall in the whole game) The Kodiak a Clan BATTLEmech.

What mech is widely considered the best heavy? a Timberwolf a Clan OMNImech.

Best medium? Hunchback IIc a Clan BATTLEmech followed closely by the Stormcrow a Clan OMNImech.

Best Light? Arctic cheetah a Clan OMNImech followed closely by the Jenner IIc a Clan BATTLEmech.

As more and more Clan BATTLEmechs are added the argument for unlocking OMNImechs become less and less relivant.

Our Clan Battlemechs have all the cake and eat it too. No argument there. If you want to talk quirks...go look at the future plans for the new skill trees that are rapidly approaching feature.
Quirks are quickly becoming irrelivent to the topic. Ghostheat? Also going by the wayside to be replaced with a universal energy draw mechanic.


Make no mistake if you think you're a hotshot mechwarrior as a clan pilot a significant amount of that is tech crutch elevating your score.

I can see it clearly when I hop between factions. I use both eyes and I have seen obvious advantages to Clantech.

and the reason for the TBR being the best considered Clan heavy? because if we had a 75t clanBATTLEmech to build it would be similary build like a TBR. The disadvantge o the most omnimechs is the lakc of possible min/max possibilities. But some Clan omnimechs have a chosen config which is so close to the opmtimum min/max that they wouldnt matter in comparison to a clanbtatlemech.

And when you look at the tbr you will soon see that it basically doesn'T have any clanomnimehc disadvantage because: it doesn't have a bad engine size. It has the additional heatsinks in the engine. it doesn't have heatsinks obstructing the mech outside. it doesn't have fixed equip or JJ's. The TBR is basically the only truly optimised Ominmech, maybe also the SCR. Most other clanomnis do have aignificant downsides. The TBR was a mehc that needed nerfs, until PGI reconsidered stuff and made negative quirks disappear and only add positive ones ot the rest. It was to be expected that clanbattlemechs break balance even more, because they would be like the TBR just without Omnimech rules.

But we should stop trying to change clan vs is tech balance, because any change on the clantech has a MASSIVELY different impact on the various clanmechs, simply because clanmechs due to having omnimechs with bad presets that can't be changed differ too much. We need balance made on the chassis, and variant level. Because any balance achieved there also balances IS vs Is imbalance and IS vs Clan balace as well as Clan vs Clan balance.

Edited by Lily from animove, 16 December 2016 - 06:20 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Bilbo, on 14 December 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

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.

STD engines are fairly useless in today's high damage output of most popular mechs. This isnt 4 years ago...