15 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

by "more robust" i mean losing an ST doesn't outright kill your XL'ed isMech.

It's actually Brandarr Gunnarson's idea as the title points out. Basically, give future LFE the current cXL's ST loss penalty and isXL 1.5x times of that (the 1.5x is from 3 crits divided by 2 crits, which is the number of crits occupying the ST from each type of engine).

the drawback which I don't particularly like is that it makes things feel "samey" and decreasing the individual flavor between the IS and Clan. On the other hand, it would surely make balancing easier.

What do you think?

[Y E O N N E]

The difference will be insignificant in practice. That is not even an "I think," that is an "I know."

[Hit the Deck]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 January 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

The difference will be insignificant in practice. That is not even an "I think," that is an "I know."

The engines are not sidegrades between each other, isXLs would still be the king.

The reason for LFEs is so that we can make more optimal builds compared to using STD.

STDs are for special builds - hello Fafnir!

[Y E O N N E]

Hit the Deck, on 17 January 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

The engines are not sidegrades between each other, isXLs would still be the king.

The reason for LFEs is so that we can make more optimal builds compared to using STD.

STDs are for special builds - hello Fafnir!

Not a fan, honestly. It is a ho-hum solution that removes the intrigue of building an IS 'Mech. I *like* that there is some risk involved in min-maxing and that it takes piloting prowess to mitigate it. This removes that thrill. I might as well go play Clans, since the construction is no longer fun.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 January 2017 - 09:31 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Hit the Deck, on 17 January 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

by "more robust" i mean losing an ST doesn't outright kill your XL'ed isMech.

It's actually Brandarr Gunnarson's idea as the title points out. Basically, give future LFE the current cXL's ST loss penalty and isXL 1.5x times of that (the 1.5x is from 3 crits divided by 2 crits, which is the number of crits occupying the ST from each type of engine).

the drawback which I don't particularly like is that it makes things feel "samey" and decreasing the individual flavor between the IS and Clan. On the other hand, it would surely make balancing easier.

What do you think?

Well.. the only mechs that would ever use the LFE under that paradigm would be mechs that need to use 10 slots in the STs (AC20s, 2xUAC5)

That does still leave them with a use, but its a bit 'edge case' for new equipment.

[Hit the Deck]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 January 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

Not a fan, honestly. It is a ho-hum solution that removes the intrigue of building an IS 'Mech. I *like* that there is some risk involved in min-maxing and that it takes piloting prowess to mitigate it. This removes that thrill. I might as well go play Clans, since the construction is no longer fun.

Then we share the same opinion.

The reason I made this thread is to show that there's a "middle ground solution".

Widowmaker1981, on 17 January 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

Well.. the only mechs that would ever use the LFE under that paradigm would be mechs that need to use 10 slots in the STs (AC20s, 2xUAC5)

That does still leave them with a use, but its a bit 'edge case' for new equipment.

Indeed, that's the reason for LFE - so that your STD'ed 'Mechs (though not all) can run a bit faster and perhaps carry a bit more.

I see it not as a tool to fix the game (bring balance between IS and Clan), but as another tool which gives the IS more options and thus a bit more edge against the Clan.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 17 January 2017 - 09:44 AM.

[Lykaon]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 January 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

Not a fan, honestly. It is a ho-hum solution that removes the intrigue of building an IS 'Mech. I *like* that there is some risk involved in min-maxing and that it takes piloting prowess to mitigate it. This removes that thrill. I might as well go play Clans, since the construction is no longer fun.

I would agree with you if there wasn't a clan XL engine out there and if Faction Play didn't put us in direct competition against that engine.

I also enjoy the challenges of building with I.S. tech. With clan tech it's just take a bunch of the best stuff and jam it into the best chassis and play.

The bottom line is I don't care about making clan and I.S. "feel" different if those differences are making the clan XL vastly superior.

I had a match recently using an Arctic Cheetah where I was unlucky in the first few moments of the game and lost my left side to some gauss + ER-PPC sniper. The match progressed to the point where it was me vs 3 severely battered enemy mechs. I took them out and won the match. If I were in an I.S. light mech I would ave been out of the match at the start and not winning the match for my team.

I got 3 kills and survived if I were using an I.S. XL engine my KDR would have been lowered not increased and this is not an isolated incident. There is a reason why clanners claim a skill superiority and it's because the clan XL pads stats just like in my example.

[Y E O N N E]

Lykaon, on 17 January 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

I would agree with you if there wasn't a clan XL engine out there and if Faction Play didn't put us in direct competition against that engine.

I also enjoy the challenges of building with I.S. tech. With clan tech it's just take a bunch of the best stuff and jam it into the best chassis and play.

The bottom line is I don't care about making clan and I.S. "feel" different if those differences are making the clan XL vastly superior.

But making the isXL survive isn't the only option. People are aiming ST because the ST has less health, creating a shortcut to a kill. Making it take just as much damage to kill through the ST removes that shortcut. Had that been a thing, you might have survived that shot even in an IS Light and still gone on to win it.

[Sjorpha]

Hit the Deck, on 17 January 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

by "more robust" i mean losing an ST doesn't outright kill your XL'ed isMech.

It's actually Brandarr Gunnarson's idea as the title points out. Basically, give future LFE the current cXL's ST loss penalty and isXL 1.5x times of that (the 1.5x is from 3 crits divided by 2 crits, which is the number of crits occupying the ST from each type of engine).

the drawback which I don't particularly like is that it makes things feel "samey" and decreasing the individual flavor between the IS and Clan. On the other hand, it would surely make balancing easier.

What do you think?

A closer balance to the clan XL would be IS XL has the same or slightly lower penalty (to compensate for the extra crit slots) and LFE has no penalties at all to compensate for the extra weight.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 17 January 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

by "more robust" i mean losing an ST doesn't outright kill your XL'ed isMech.

It's actually Brandarr Gunnarson's idea as the title points out. Basically, give future LFE the current cXL's ST loss penalty and isXL 1.5x times of that (the 1.5x is from 3 crits divided by 2 crits, which is the number of crits occupying the ST from each type of engine).

the drawback which I don't particularly like is that it makes things feel "samey" and decreasing the individual flavor between the IS and Clan. On the other hand, it would surely make balancing easier.

What do you think?

Not ...really going to be noticeable.

Honestly, I'd rather just buff IS Mechs to 3x IS instead of 2x, and leave the Clans with 2x, then rebalance the weapons. Makes IS Mechs tougher, Clan Mechs more Offensive.

Really don't want to see them essentially the...same...but the same.

[Hit the Deck]

Sjorpha, on 17 January 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

A closer balance to the clan XL would be IS XL has the same or slightly lower penalty (to compensate for the extra crit slots) and LFE has no penalties at all to compensate for the extra weight.

That definitely could work.

[GrimRiver]

Give IS XL's ST structure buffs when equipped, varying per weight class.

Give IS STD CT structure buff when equipped, varying per weight class.

LFE gets no buffs, as it's buff is not dying from an ST loss.

Edited by GrimRiver, 17 January 2017 - 07:04 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

GrimRiver, on 17 January 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

Give IS XL's ST structure buffs when equipped, varying per weight class.

Armor+structure. Enough to make ST == CT.

Quote

Give IS STD CT structure buff when equipped, varying per weight class.

That just leaves every STD 'Mech stripped instead of dead. Functionally the same thing and not an improvement.

[GrimRiver]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 January 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

Armor+structure. Enough to make ST == CT.



That just leaves every STD 'Mech stripped instead of dead. Functionally the same thing and not an improvement.

I don't follow on what you mean?

STD mech's already get stripped regardless, unless your mech can zombie.

[Gentleman Reaper]

GrimRiver, on 17 January 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

I don't follow on what you mean?

STD mech's already get stripped regardless, unless your mech can zombie.

He means that unless STD engines also give structure in the STs, then the equipped mech can just as easily get stripped of weaponry as before.

Imagine a Griffon, an extremely asymmetric mech, if STDs only buff the CT then someone can just as easily strip you of your weapons by targeting the ST that holds all your weapons, essentially defeating you at that point without needing to take the time to core you, it would be more attractive to simply go XL or LFE since you can twist and have that extra durability/survivability.

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 17 January 2017 - 07:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

GrimRiver, on 17 January 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

I don't follow on what you mean?

STD mech's already get stripped regardless, unless your mech can zombie.

That's exactly the problem. The speed deficit makes it easier to target components and remove them. We haven't yet touched on the firepower deficit from having to dedicate so much weight just to move at acceptable speeds, either.

It's already too easy to mission-kill most STD-running 'Mechs because they can't distribute damage as well and they can't pack enough firepower to ward off attackers as well as XL-engine 'Mechs can. In some cases, the gap isn't huge, but in others it is.