385 replies to this topic

[Bradigus]

Johnny Z, on 17 December 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Remove speed tweak from all XL engines. See how that goes and go from there.

This brings Clantech closer to Inner Sphere tech. Makes the Inner Sphere XL even more of a glass cannon instead of being a Glass Cannon and faster. This also buffs the standard engine.

This change should be some what easy to do and reverse if need be.

Yes I have been spamming this but the idea seems really good.

The Battletech Universe was founded on the standard engine. TTK and everything else was based on the standard engine. Power creep got out of hand, maybe time to do some "normalization"?

Standard engine needs more of a look at its tonnage costs. And the requirement of 10 heatsinks needs to be removed, it's a relic from the earlier stages of beta. If it followed a simplified curve, let's say... 0.5 tons for every 5 rating increase under 300 rating, and 1 ton for every 5 rating increase above 300 rating.

A STD280 engine costs 22 tons. A STD300 is 25 tons. A STD400 is a whopping 59.5 tons. Not even an Atlas can afford a STD400 engine with both Ferro and Endo upgrades and still bring more firepower than a light mech. There are large leaps in tonnage costs scattered about the upper end of the engine ratings, presumably to prevent mechs like Banshees from going fast and bringing all the guns. If STD engines followed that tonnage curve directly, those previously mentioned engines weight costs would drop by 3, 4, 18.5 tons. Costing 19, 21 and 41 respectively. There are issues with huge engines and some mechs suddenly having not enough space for weapons and heatsinks to fill the tonnage, not to mention this would make XL engines cost very little in terms of tonnage if directly mirrored, so some concessions would have to be made. Though even if nothing change, an XL engine would still provide you slightly more spare tonnage.

However, it would make STD engines more of an interesting option, as you would have a survivable option that does not so comprehensively limit your weapon options in comparison to XL engines of both types, and PGI could implement this without having to put in the Light Fusion Engine. This tonnage simplification would mostly help heavies and assaults, as mediums and lights with standard engines would only see between 1 and 2.5 tons of savings from previous requirements.

[Johnny Z]

Bradigus, on 17 December 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

Standard engine needs more of a look at its tonnage costs. And the requirement of 10 heatsinks needs to be removed, it's a relic from the earlier stages of beta. If it followed a simplified curve, let's say... 0.5 tons for every 5 rating increase under 300 rating, and 1 ton for every 5 rating increase above 300 rating.

A STD280 engine costs 22 tons. A STD300 is 25 tons. A STD400 is a whopping 59.5 tons. Not even an Atlas can afford a STD400 engine with both Ferro and Endo upgrades and still bring more firepower than a light mech. There are large leaps in tonnage costs scattered about the upper end of the engine ratings, presumably to prevent mechs like Banshees from going fast and bringing all the guns. If STD engines followed that tonnage curve directly, those previously mentioned engines weight costs would drop by 3, 4, 18.5 tons. Costing 19, 21 and 41 respectively. There are issues with huge engines and some mechs suddenly having not enough space for weapons and heatsinks to fill the tonnage, not to mention this would make XL engines cost very little in terms of tonnage if directly mirrored, so some concessions would have to be made. Though even if nothing change, an XL engine would still provide you slightly more spare tonnage.

However, it would make STD engines more of an interesting option, as you would have a survivable option that does not so comprehensively limit your weapon options in comparison to XL engines of both types, and PGI could implement this without having to put in the Light Fusion Engine. This tonnage simplification would mostly help heavies and assaults, as mediums and lights with standard engines would only see between 1 and 2.5 tons of savings from previous requirements.

Ok because making the ISXL stronger hurts the standard which is the durable option for Inner Sphere. What ever works. Quirks have made balance close, as in making the Inner Sphere XL close as well, so I am still liking the remove speed tweak idea because of the slight slow down of massive mechs to more sim levels.

The big balance issue is the over all faster Clan mechs. The rest is a lot of debate and arguments but cannot argue the Clantech speed offers many advantages. Closing the speed gap between standards and XL's and improvements from that is my main point.

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 December 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[Lykaon]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 December 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

their is a problem with just adding Structure when you have an IS XL equipped,

so at New Player Level, Clan are easier to Run though more expensive(to Start)
but at Pro Play, the gap is at 1% or less, considering Perfect Twisting(no Structure Quirks),
with Structure Quirks both sides are now Equal but at Pro Play Clan falls behind,
Edit-

The examples in that video assume quite a few things that honestly rarely if ever occur. In order for the examples used to prove this point quite a few things need to be true.

All damage applied can not be pinpoint front loaded damage. Why? you can't torso twist and disperse pin point front loaded damage. So if "perfect aim" was a calculation to justify the math used than pinpoint damage should not have been ignored. It was though.

The damage applied to the twisting target should be sourced from the same direction or "perfect" twisting is impossible. If I'm twisting away from damage striking my left side to spread it to my right components as well if the enemy is also on my left flank I may have exposed other more vulnerable armor to incoming fire (maybe even my rear side torso armor greatly reducing my XL's survival chances)

Also, No accounting was made for how damage is really applied in actual combat. In actual combat twisting to disperse damage would by nature apply damage onto destroyed body locations.

Destroyed body locations that are damage transfer damage inward to the next body location with a FIFTY percent decrease in power.

So a mech taking 8 damage to the destroyed right arm would actually take only 4 damage to the right torso.

Eventually the side torso will be lost killing the I.S. mech and damaging the Clan mech severely. Except now the clanmech has a sidetorso and arm that are technically destroyed but is in reallity are 50% damage sinks (per section transfered through) for the CT if twisting is used to face the destroyed torso into incoming damage.

So a clan mech using "perfect twisting" (a criterior to justify the math used in this video) would from the right "destroyed" side have 8 damage strike the "destroyed" right arm transfering 4 damage to the "destroyed" right torso that will now transfer 50% of that damage to the center torso. This means the Clan mech with a destroyed side can mitigate an 8 point hit to a paultry 2 points of actuall damage while the Inner Sphere mech is just dead already.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 December 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I thought damage was reduced 40% through one component, 60% through two applied after the 40%? So..super tanky if you are trying to shoot through both an arm socket and a destroyed side torso.

Edit:
Realistically, the short version of what would happen if isXL granted structure buff would be that the IS 'Mech can remain near fully operational for longer, but when the side pops the whole 'Mech will go while the Clan one can at least remain partially functioning. It really just enhances the "all or nothing" nature of the isXL.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 December 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[Cizjut]

Movement Speed is the best defensive thing (and only) stat in the game, and clanmechs are faster, therefore more forgiving

XL engines on the IS side aren't that bad, but they're ridiculously expensive to start with. So nobody really tinkers and invests on that, and for PUGs, seems like a stupid decision when it's the best investment out of it.

Clan mechs are just meta fitted from the start. They seem OP because they ARE op in their stock versions compared to IS stock versions, which, are crap. But when the same CBills are spent on them, they're pretty similar. This makes pug people confused and keep stacking wins to the Clan side.

[Andi Nagasia]

Lykaon, on 17 December 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

The examples in that video assume quite a few things that honestly rarely if ever occur. In order for the examples used to prove this point quite a few things need to be true.

All damage applied can not be pinpoint front loaded damage. Why? you can't torso twist and disperse pin point front loaded damage. So if "perfect aim" was a calculation to justify the math used than pinpoint damage should not have been ignored. It was though.

The damage applied to the twisting target should be sourced from the same direction or "perfect" twisting is impossible. If I'm twisting away from damage striking my left side to spread it to my right components as well if the enemy is also on my left flank I may have exposed other more vulnerable armor to incoming fire (maybe even my rear side torso armor greatly reducing my XL's survival chances)

it only Tries to assume the Minimum damage needed to kill and the Maximum needed to kill a Mech with an XL,
so its Fact the Amount of damage needed to kill a mech with an XL has to be between those 2 points,
assuming that the Average, lets say both spread equally, we are looking at Clan being 25% better,

Lykaon, on 17 December 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Also, No accounting was made for how damage is really applied in actual combat. In actual combat twisting to disperse damage would by nature apply damage onto destroyed body locations.

Destroyed body locations that are damage transfer damage inward to the next body location with a FIFTY percent decrease in power.

So a mech taking 8 damage to the destroyed right arm would actually take only 4 damage to the right torso.

Eventually the side torso will be lost killing the I.S. mech and damaging the Clan mech severely. Except now the clanmech has a sidetorso and arm that are technically destroyed but is in reallity are 50% damage sinks (per section transfered through) for the CT if twisting is used to face the destroyed torso into incoming damage.

So a clan mech using "perfect twisting" (a criterior to justify the math used in this video) would from the right "destroyed" side have 8 damage strike the "destroyed" right arm transfering 4 damage to the "destroyed" right torso that will now transfer 50% of that damage to the center torso. This means the Clan mech with a destroyed side can mitigate an 8 point hit to a paultry 2 points of actuall damage while the Inner Sphere mech is just dead already.

true but not 100% true, if you lose a ST ya it would be better to tank with your Weak side,
but if your twisting and spreading well, when you lose your ST you CT & other ST should also be near death,
at that point it doesnt much matter to shield with your dead side as it wont help enough to matter,

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 December 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

I thought damage was reduced 40% through one component, 60% through two applied after the 40%? So..super tanky if you are trying to shoot through both an arm socket and a destroyed side torso.

Edit:
Realistically, the short version of what would happen if isXL granted structure buff would be that the IS 'Mech can remain near fully operational for longer, but when the side pops the whole 'Mech will go while the Clan one can at least remain partially functioning. It really just enhances the "all or nothing" nature of the isXL.

Reduced 60% through the first, then another 60% through the second
Used to be half and half, increased near the Clam invasion
40% damage outright, not 40% reduction


So, yes, 3.2 damage from an AC20 in optimal range.

Edited by Mcgral18, 17 December 2016 - 04:06 PM.

[Lykaon]

Cizjut, on 17 December 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Movement Speed is the best defensive thing (and only) stat in the game, and clanmechs are faster, therefore more forgiving

XL engines on the IS side aren't that bad, but they're ridiculously expensive to start with. So nobody really tinkers and invests on that, and for PUGs, seems like a stupid decision when it's the best investment out of it.

Clan mechs are just meta fitted from the start. They seem OP because they ARE op in their stock versions compared to IS stock versions, which, are crap. But when the same CBills are spent on them, they're pretty similar. This makes pug people confused and keep stacking wins to the Clan side.

Well let's not forget the bulk of I.S. gear is also a limiting factor.

A Mauler MX90 can mount three AC5s in a single side torso but not UAC5s and not with an XL yet...I could fit 3 Ultra AC5s and an XL with a crit to spare if it were a clan mech.

Inner sphere mech with two AC10 in a side torso...not possible For clans twin UAC10s is doable with an XL installed to boot.

XL + class 20 autocannon in a side torso is a clan only thing. Clan mechs are much more generous with build options.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Please stop talking about lore and TT. It's ridiculous. This game departed from both so long ago that bringing it up as a reason for or against something is just foolishness.

Lore and TT should be tertiary concerns, at best.

[Lykaon]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 December 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

true but not 100% true, if you lose a ST ya it would be better to tank with your Weak side,
but if your twisting and spreading well, when you lose your ST you CT & other ST should also be near death,
at that point it doesnt much matter to shield with your dead side as it wont help enough to matter,

Some mech builds are designed to shield with a sacrifice side from the get go. You turn your sacrificial side to intercept damage and realign the opposite side (the one with all the guns ) to shoot. This is still a viable (if not ideal) strategy for clan XLs yet suicide for I.S. XLs.

[xXBagheeraXx]

Nope. Xl engines are what they are, and I'm mostly an IS player. MWO has already broken quite a few rules when it comes to mechs and weapons but thats kind of one of those basic rules. You crit 3 engine slots you die, pure and simple. There is a reason why IS developed ultralight fusion engines.....

[Andi Nagasia]

xXBagheeraXx, on 17 December 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Nope. Xl engines are what they are, and I'm mostly an IS player. MWO has already broken quite a few rules when it comes to mechs and weapons but thats kind of one of those basic rules. You crit 3 engine slots you die, pure and simple. There is a reason why IS developed ultralight fusion engines.....

theirs no Engine Crits in MWO, so that rule wouldnt be changed,
also you cant import Rules 1:1 from TT to FPS, this is why dont have JJ and ECM pods for all OmniMechs,
this change will make both sides easier to balance, and then after STD and LFE can get Structure Quirks,
such Structure Quirks will give them Reason to Exist and work in MWO,

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

xXBagheeraXx, on 17 December 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Nope. Xl engines are what they are, and I'm mostly an IS player. MWO has already broken quite a few rules when it comes to mechs and weapons but thats kind of one of those basic rules. You crit 3 engine slots you die, pure and simple. There is a reason why IS developed ultralight fusion engines.....

This is not a personal attack on you, Bagheera; rather a blanket statement to the arguments you used.

You guys using lore and TT as your primary arguments, knock it off.

1) TT was a strategy board game, much closer to 4x turn-based games. MWO is a real-time shooter/sim.

2) TT players controlled multiple 'Mechs. In MWO, you get 1.

3) TT used probabilities to determine hit chance, hit location and damage. MWO uses pinpoint + skill and has absolute damage application.

4) TT used the 3-crit rule. MWO uses simple ST loss.

Now, we could use the 3-crit rule in MWO, but we don't yet.

So, please, stop the foolishness.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 17 December 2016 - 05:57 PM.

[MischiefSC]

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.

Balance tech, remove quirks, unlock Clan tech.

Then requirk IS and Clan to bring up badly designed robbits.

[A Saskatoon Berry Pie]

Bradigus, on 17 December 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

Standard engine needs more of a look at its tonnage costs.

That's actually a pretty interesting idea.

[Elessar]

Looking at Tabletop:
2 Engine crits (which a Clanner would get after a side torso destruction) = + 10 Heat per turn

But (and that is the most important difference between TT and MWO):
Already a 5 surplus heat after a turn you get -1 Movement point (that would be ~10 km/h) and at 8 surplus heat you get +1 on targeting for the next turn. And from this point on penalties steadily increase, with more penalties on movement, worse targeting and even rising risks of ammo explosion.

In contrast to this, MWO only has penalties after surpassing 100% heat, which can take a while.

So, to sum this up:
In Battletech TT a clan mech with a side torso lost is severely crippled ...not only from lost weapons, but also from his severe heat problems, probably forcing him to only fire a small fraction of his weaponry and/or experiencing more and more cripppling penalties due to rising heat.

In contrast to this, a MWO clan mech still is able to function very well after losing his side torso (especially if no weapons were mounted in the side torso or this sides arm).


So, yes, of course there should be changes.
As I doubt that PGI will ever implement a detailed heat system as in Tabletop (there have been enough petitions of founders during Betaphase, which all fell oin deaf ears), there should be found another way (or the heat has to be vamped up so much, that a mech with 2 engine crits has its base level heat rise to 75% or more)

IMHO a good reflection on tabletop heat penalties would be, if engine critical hits would increase the recycle times of your weapons (for example doubling all weapons recycle time after 2 engine crits), make your mech slower and give you sensor blackouts every couple of seconds (with the severity increasing, the more crits your engine receives).
It could even be rationalized (with the engine after crits supplying not enough energy for all systems to run without problems)

Edited by Elessar, 17 December 2016 - 10:00 PM.

[xXBagheeraXx]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 17 December 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

This is not a personal attack on you, Bagheera; rather a blanket statement to the arguments you used.

You guys using lore and TT as your primary arguments, knock it off.

1) TT was a strategy board game, much closer to 4x turn-based games. MWO is a real-time shooter/sim.

2) TT players controlled multiple 'Mechs. In MWO, you get 1.

3) TT used probabilities to determine hit chance, hit location and damage. MWO uses pinpoint + skill and has absolute damage application.

4) TT used the 3-crit rule. MWO uses simple ST loss.

Now, we could use the 3-crit rule in MWO, but we don't yet.

So, please, stop the foolishness.

Hey guys while we are at it, I dont think blowing legs off should reduce my engine speed...its just a leg....I mean I think its unfair my mech move so slowly with just a few busted leg actuators, while we are bending the rules.

These are the base rules of the game man. You destroy 3 slots of an engine, you die. You destroy the head, you die, you destroy the center torso, you die. You destroy both legs...YOU DIE. THose rules should no more be changed than when you fire weapons, you generate heat....What i see everyone asking for is for everything to be the SAME. because "clans OP" Some of their tech is more powerful than IS counterparts. XL engines are one of them, but thier limited flexibliity on the omni chassis is how they pay for it. As an IS player i have 0 issues with that and even less killing your average clan mech in my "underpowered Standard engined IS mech"

Also you have to realize we dont have a lot of XL friendly heavy mechs and NO xl friendly assault mechs...NO your xl awesome/kingcrab/banshee do not count. they are wide as all outside and easy to side torso. An XL friendly IS assault (I.E. small side torsos) would absolutely stomp the face of anything near its tonnage clan or othwerwise due to the amount of firepower you can bring to bear while still having decent survibability, AND being much colder running than a clan mech running HALF its firepower. Have we forgotten how GOOD Victors where at one point till the jump jet nerf and before all that high end Alpha started flying around? And no im not talking about lame AC5PPC meta victors just run of the mill AC20 lobbing LPL brawlers. Honestly VIctors can STILL put in some amazing work if you know how to run them.

I'm personally waiting to see how they model something like the IS Saggitare, because if it has small side torsos...with the amount of energy hardpoints it will likely have and some endo steel...its going to be incredibly well armed....Then everyone will be crying NERF IS when it happens...

As a predominatly IS driver I have never felt the clans had an unfair advantage....especially considering how hot thier weapons are...YEAH they pack more firepower but they are for the most part very fragile, and very hot running while I can alpha again and again with my "inferior" weapons and take them out easily. I see no noeed for more clan nerfs.

also Im pretty sure completly blowing off a side torso means you critted all 3 engine slots. Just the fact that you CANT crit all 3 engine slots without completly destroying the side torso is actually a leg up. Technically if it where pure TT shenanagins you could one shot an IS XL engine without even destroying the side torso completely.....

Edited by xXBagheeraXx, 17 December 2016 - 09:56 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

@xXBagheeraXx
yes their are Rules but also this is a FPS not TT,
the only way to assure Balanced Play is to Balance Tech,
and if all XL engines working the same is whats needed to do that than it must be done,
Legacy Rules or no Legacy Rules, yes Lore is Important but Balances is most Important,

[xXBagheeraXx]

HOWEVER....I am all for some heat dissipation nerfs and things lke that on engine hits.....

BUT to do that would require an actual heat system that penalizes you. We do not have that now. MWLL modeled this beutifully as you can crit and blow out heatsinks on critical hits, and even melt down your own by overheating your mech. Engine damage really reduced your speed and turning rate. but again, it requires a functional heat system. We never got that. Thats why bandaids like ghost heat where added.

Penalties on engine hits I'm ok with as long as they are resonable and not something conviluted and cheesy like "targeting errors" and crap like that. Keep it simple stupid, as the saying goes.

But what I dont want? IS xl engines behaving like clan engines...because "Clans OP"

Want to run an IS brawler that will lose a side torso? run a standard. Somethng long ranged thats gonna pack good fire power? run an XL.

I run NO clan brawlers other than a splat vulture for lols. Because you lose side torsos easily in brawlers. I adapt my builds and engines to work around the survivibilty problems my choice of mech or engine present, not ask the game to bend the rules for me for an unnecessary leg up.

Its common sense. There are certain things certain builds cannot do. If we where playing world of tanks and you where in a poorly armored light tank, begging for it to get 300mms of armor because "all the other tanks can bounce shots, why cant I?" You'd get laughed out the forums. Its not something you where built to do. wanna bounce shots? Run a heavy tank cupcake.

Want to survive a side torso loss? Run a standard if your mech is not XL friendly. Stop sticking gauss in XL side torsos..Roll your damage. Etc. ETC.

Andi Nagasia, on 17 December 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

@xXBagheeraXx
yes their are Rules but also this is a FPS not TT,
the only way to assure Balanced Play is to Balance Tech,
and if all XL engines working the same is whats needed to do that than it must be done,
Legacy Rules or no Legacy Rules, yes Lore is Important but Balances is most Important,

Then dont ******* call it mechwarrior. Because once you start changing core rules like that you just have stompy robot game.

Edited by xXBagheeraXx, 17 December 2016 - 10:05 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

xXBagheeraXx, on 17 December 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:

Then dont ******* call it mechwarrior. Because once you start changing core rules like that you just have stompy robot game.

i hear this alot, well if it doesnt have this its not MechWarrior, if it doesnt have that its not MechWarrior,
well to me, having BattleTech mechs in a FPS Mech Simulation Like Game is MechWarrior,

you say they need to Follow TT Rules, well Clan Weapons have been Nerfed,
IS have non Canon levels of armor and Structure, and Instant Full Mech Factory Customization,
both those things you seem ok with, and those break lore,

but when you have the XL discussion suddenly we have to Follow TT Rules to a T?
even though they dont Apply here in this FPS being MWO? TT has Engine Crits, MWO doesnt,
so you keep Bringing up TT Engine Crit Rules that Dont Apply to this MechWarrior Game,

if we have to Ditch the LORE, TT IS-XL Engine Rules about ST Death,
to bring Clan Weapons back to LORE standards, and IS armor Back to LORE standards, im all For it,
its Bringing us to a better more balanced Game, a better more Balanced MechWarrior game,

by your Admition of wanting more Lore in MWO,
your losing One TT Lore Rule (IS-XL Engine Death)
But your Gaining back Two in its Place(Less IS Armor Quirk)(Better Clan Weapons)
id take better balance and more Lore over Shotty Balance & Holding onto whats left,

MWO needs to move forward, it needs to grow as a Game, & as a Community,
if both XL Engines working the Same is what it needed for Better Balance of the Game then it needs to happen,
i would rather XL Engines be the Same, and use Weapons and equipment to keep the Factions Unique,
Rather than keeping XL's Unique and make all Weapons and Equipment the same,

now lets all move together as a Community to make MWO better,
Thank you,
Edit-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 17 December 2016 - 11:13 PM.