15 replies to this topic

[Dracol]

As it stands now, IS pay 2 crit slots for extra tonnage and the drawback of death by side torso loss. Clans do not. Some call for the removal of the death by side torso, however that would dilute the distinction between techs.

This may have been proposed before and apologies to whomever may have presented this idea before. But, haven't seen it so....


IS engines give quirk like bonus depending on XL or Standard.

Inner Sphere XL Engines would provide increased agility compared to equal rating Clan engines

IS Standard Engines would provided increased durability compared to equal rating Clan engines


XL Agility Bonus
Does this give IS direct durability compared to Clan XL, no. However, heavier mechs would benefit from noticeably increased ability to spread damage via torso twisting versus Clan damage over time weapons.

Lighter IS mechs would be able to out turn and out maneuver Clan mechs running equal rated engines.

Turn speed, accl speed, decel speed, torso twist speed would be the stats targeted. Top speed would not.

Standard Durability Bonus
An IS Standard mech is meant to be tanky, however tankiness without the ability to return fire is near worthless. With the heavy cost in tonnage, standard engine heavies/assualts have a large discrepancy of firepower compared to Clan equivalents. If standard engines provided a structure bonus to the torsos, enough to give it a chance to return 1 or 2 salvos before losing the majority of its weapons, this may be enough to bridge the gap.

What does this accomplish?
First, it preserves the flavor of the different tech bases. Clan as unified, structure, military minded. IS as choice loving, loose canon, freeborn, fighters.

Second, it does not obsolete IS standard engines, unlike, for the most part, Clan tech does.

Third, it helps better define the roles the engines fill. A player can see from the stats that XL engines are meant for dodging damage. Standard engines for with standing damage.

Last but most importantly, it diminishes the tech imbalance brought about by Clan XLs costing 2 slots less and not imparting the death by side torso disadvantage.

[Pjwned]

It's a better idea than IS XL surviving side torso loss at least.

I'm still not in favor of it though.

[Gas Guzzler]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

It's a better idea than IS XL surviving side torso loss at least.

I'm still not in favor of it though.

LFEs aren't the end all perfect solution either though

[Josh Seles]

The Light Engine May not be a perfect solution, but then again, nothing is perfect.

I still think Light Engines should be introduced mainly for balance reasons, but also just to have that option. Light Engines aren't much different from Clan XL Engines anyways, both take up 2 side torso slots, both can survive 1 side torso loss, and both are weight-saving. The differences are the tech base (Clan vs IS), and the amount of weight saved compared to Standard engines (Clan XL: 50%, IS Light: 25%)

True, the Light Engine is nowhere near as good as a Clan XL, but its still something. Copy-paste Clan XL game data, modify 2 or 3 values. Of all the Futuretech people want, this is likely, by far, the easiest to implement and introduce.

I can agree, though grudgingly, with Standard engines having durability quirks and specifically, IS XL having small agility quirks, key word being small, to emphasize their roles. Light Engines and Clan XL would get no quirks, they are best of both worlds. Thus, no one engine type is obsoleted, and we don't have to change IS XL fragility. I'd VERY MUCH rather see the elimination of as many quirks as possible.

I cannot and will not agree with changing IS XL survivability.

Edited by Josh Seles, 09 January 2017 - 08:29 PM.

[Pjwned]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 January 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

LFEs aren't the end all perfect solution either though

Well I never said that they are, and I want more changes & additions beyond just LFEs, but it's still a better idea.

Agility buffs for IS engines is probably the least undesirable idea I've seen, but again I still don't like it, and at least one reason for that is I don't want mech agility tied to engine rating.

[FupDup]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

Agility buffs for IS engines is probably the least undesirable idea I've seen, but again I still don't like it, and at least one reason for that is I don't want mech agility tied to engine rating.

Well, in this case it would be agility tied to engine type rather than rating. Your conscious can rest easy.

I'm kind of indifferent on the idea though.

[Dracol]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

and at least one reason for that is I don't want mech agility tied to engine rating.

I can respect that. Making agility dependent upon engine rating has been controversial from the beginning. Would have been interesting if it was Mech dependent. Would have given another set of tools to balance chassis with. Crappy hard points/low mounts, good agility. Lots of hard points and/or high mounts, sorry, you'll be turning a little slower.

But then again, it would be weird if agility stayed fixed when the speed on a mech was increased.

FupDup, on 09 January 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

Well, in this case it would be agility tied to engine type rather than rating. Your conscious can rest easy.

I'm kind of indifferent on the idea though.

Oh, it would still be tied with rating too. So, his conscious would be doubly troubled with it, maybe. *shrug*

[Y E O N N E]

The sheer number of XL balance threads being revived or created is kind of impressive...

[Hit the Deck]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 January 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

LFEs aren't the end all perfect solution either though

They aren't but I want IS to have them so they can have more options.

But PGI said no new tech, so....

Edited by Hit the Deck, 09 January 2017 - 09:22 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 January 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

The sheer number of XL balance threads being revived or created is kind of impressive...

Hopefully that means PGI read through them and gleaned some good ideas and totally aren't going to come out with some half-assed implementation that ignores the problem and only mitigates some issues.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 January 2017 - 09:08 PM.

[El Bandito]

As long as IS XL and CXL gaps are keep getting reduced, I'm content.

Yeonne Greene, on 09 January 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

The sheer number of XL balance threads being revived or created is kind of impressive...

Yes, and it is a good thing. Shows that there is a real balance issue, and shows that people actually care about such issues, and the game in general.

Edited by El Bandito, 09 January 2017 - 09:42 PM.

[Snowbluff]

This feels redundant. By using a higher engine rating by virtue of an XL, aren't you already getting better acceleration/etc?

El Bandito, on 09 January 2017 - 09:40 PM, said:

Yes, and it is a good thing. Shows that there is a real balance issue,

Argumentum ad populous?

[Aiden Skye]

[El Bandito]

Snowbluff, on 09 January 2017 - 10:03 PM, said:

Argumentum ad populous?

For me, the imbalance between IS XL and CXL is a self evident truth. I'm just happy that more people are starting to realize it.

[Snowbluff]

El Bandito, on 09 January 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

For me, the imbalance between IS XL and CXL is a self evident truth. I'm just happy that more people are starting to realize it.

Assuming there is a problem (realistic or academically this is a good place to approach from) I think the best solution is to structure quirk it. BLR 2C style. Blunt force, too simple to **** up, history proven method to make mechs competitive. Fixes STD too.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 09 January 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

Well, in this case it would be agility tied to engine type rather than rating. Your conscious can rest easy.

I'm kind of indifferent on the idea though.

True, I guess I should have said I don't want agility tied to the engine at all because I still stand by what I said.

That is a good point though, it wouldn't be as bad if agility was tied to the engine type but not the rating, but again I still prefer other solutions.