20 replies to this topic

[Rorik Thrumsalr]

So (and pardon me if this has been brought up) was I the only one who thought that PGI's patch wording in regards to XL balancing was very strongly implying that we'd see Inner Sphere Light engines being introduced with the same penalties in the timeline update?

For those who are not aware:
"Designed to mimic the compact profile and light weight of Clan-tech XL Engines, the Light Fusion Engine weighs only 75% of a standard Fusion Engine. While not as dramatic as the 50% weight saving of an XL Engine, the real benefit of the Light Fusion Engine is that while it intrudes into the side torsos of a BattleMech, it takes up the same amount of space as a Clan extra-light engine, allowing a Light Fusion Engine equipped 'Mech to survive the destruction of a side-torso that would cripple an Inner Sphere XL engine equipped 'Mech."

Invented by the Wolf's Dragoons and manufactured initially by the Lyrans in 3062 it would seem to me at least as a much stronger way of balancing the two sides without hitting anyone with the nerf bat.

Any thoughts?

[Y E O N N E]

It could also be implying we won't see them because it would further obsolete the STD engine and would make it easier for IS to run big engines, which is something that PGI apparently doesn't think should be tenable.

[Pjwned]

Well, it definitely did seem like it hinted at light fusion engines when looking at their explanation for not buffing IS XL engines, but it's possible that the LFE might not have the same penalties (although it should have the same penalties) depending on what PGI has in mind and possibly how much people piss & moan about engine IS vs clan balance and whether or not they shift from a huge campaign of whining for IS XL buffs to whining for LFE buffs in the form of smaller penalties.

I also can't see how they could justify announcing 3060+ tech and not include the light fusion engine.

[BurningDesire]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 January 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

It could also be implying we won't see them because it would further obsolete the STD engine and would make it easier for IS to run big engines, which is something that PGI apparently doesn't think should be tenable.

maybe they could add another 5 heatsinks into a standard engine with no extra weight, add a little bit of turn rate but not make it stupid might help keep them relevant

[Hit the Deck]

Rorik Thrumsalr, on 20 January 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

...

Any thoughts?

LFE is not a balancing tool by making it competes directly with cXL.

It will indirectly bring balance by giving the IS more options at their disposal. In fact, this is actually how the two sides are balanced if you take a look at how much new equipment the IS gets past 3060 compared to the Clan.

[Y E O N N E]

BurningDesire, on 20 January 2017 - 11:28 PM, said:

maybe they could add another 5 heatsinks into a standard engine with no extra weight, add a little bit of turn rate but not make it stupid might help keep them relevant

Stuff along those lines has been suggested. A little extra built-in armor/structure for all three torsos (vs. the XL just buffing sides) and some form of built-in cooling increase so you can take competitive firepower and not dump all your tonnage on DHS for a mediocre payload is pretty much exactly what the STD engine needs.

Hit the Deck, on 20 January 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

LFE is not a balancing tool by making it competes directly with cXL.

It will indirectly bring balance by giving the IS more options at their disposal. In fact, this is actually how the two sides are balanced if you take a look at how much new equipment the IS gets past 3060 compared to the Clan.

This idea only works if PGI makes IS weapons better than they currently are ton-for-ton and slot-for-slot.

E: Oops, accidentally quoted myself.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 20 January 2017 - 11:35 PM.

[BurningDesire]

i want IS mechs to feel and play different to clan mechs otherwise its just a whitewash and there is no point in playing a certain mech.
Adding structure to IS mechs with engines just makes them even tankier than they are now. making standard engines better with heat for brawling will really make them scary in CC. so it will help keep it IS for brawling clan for long range.

I like that IS weapons are different than clan and they are good in there correct use like anything.
the gauss is a good example now but they really need to make it a long range weapon again and give it a 12 sec cool down.
And drop they amount of splash damage clan PPC's get, god thats a joke

[Hit the Deck]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 January 2017 - 11:33 PM, said:

...
This idea only works if PGI makes IS weapons better than they currently are ton-for-ton and slot-for-slot.

Yeah, you know that that is how I think it should be.

BTW, the tricky part is to make IS weapons a bit better than the Clan's without making it too obvious like they (IS weapons) having better stats. Making the Clan ACs burst fired is a good example.

[Chuck Jager]

I welcome any tech that obsoletes the std engine.

Basically, why would anybody want to use an outhouse after the invention of the indoor porcelain replacement.

[The6thMessenger]

Clan-Tech is OP, really. Yes lasers have longer duration, ACs shoot in burst -- IS have their PPFLD, like single-shot ac, low duration though less damage lasers, smaller spread srms, single-volley LRMs. But then considering the weight of all that weapon, in addition of the XL engine not as viable as the STD for many mechs, resulting in even lesser fire power of the already less fire power.

PPFLD is nice, but when players are able to maintain face time, it results in better damage.

The ability to give more firepower to IS mechs are really a balancing factor, such as LFEs. But Light engines would literally obsolete STD engines, as not many mechs are worth zombie-ing. Seriously what else you could contribute with a stick King Crab?

I guess much of the feature of battlemechs are the ability to change engines, so i could understand why would PGI want to make STD engine somewhat viable since it's in the game anyways. So Light Engine is iffy at that point of view.

I would really like Light Engines, but i fear that it's not really a tech to introduce considering PGI's intended direction (as it appears to me).

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 January 2017 - 03:05 AM.

[Lykaon]

Rorik Thrumsalr, on 20 January 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

So (and pardon me if this has been brought up) was I the only one who thought that PGI's patch wording in regards to XL balancing was very strongly implying that we'd see Inner Sphere Light engines being introduced with the same penalties in the timeline update?

For those who are not aware:
"Designed to mimic the compact profile and light weight of Clan-tech XL Engines, the Light Fusion Engine weighs only 75% of a standard Fusion Engine. While not as dramatic as the 50% weight saving of an XL Engine, the real benefit of the Light Fusion Engine is that while it intrudes into the side torsos of a BattleMech, it takes up the same amount of space as a Clan extra-light engine, allowing a Light Fusion Engine equipped 'Mech to survive the destruction of a side-torso that would cripple an Inner Sphere XL engine equipped 'Mech."

Invented by the Wolf's Dragoons and manufactured initially by the Lyrans in 3062 it would seem to me at least as a much stronger way of balancing the two sides without hitting anyone with the nerf bat.

Any thoughts?

My thoughts are it's inferior in nearly every way to having an XL engine that survives side torso destruction.

75% weight vs 50% means the Clan engine is better

2 crits per side torso for both clan engine is still better because additional weight saving techs are half the crits of the I.S. versions ( endo steel and ferro armor)

So if balance is giving one side a clear and superior edge and the other side gets a second rate knock off that is literally half as good then sure call it better balance.

[Hit the Deck]

The6thMessenger, on 21 January 2017 - 03:01 AM, said:

...
The ability to give more firepower to IS mechs are really a balancing factor, such as LFEs. But Light engines would literally obsolete STD engines, as not many mechs are worth zombie-ing. Seriously what else you could contribute with a stick King Crab?
...

STDs are not for zombieing but for those builds where you need all of ST slots free, and Heavy Gauss Rifles (and LB-20X, but PGI must make LB weapons not suck first).

As you can already guess, they wouldn't be that many.

[Lykaon]

BurningDesire, on 20 January 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

I like that IS weapons are different than clan and they are good in there correct use like anything.
the gauss is a good example now but they really need to make it a long range weapon again and give it a 12 sec cool down.
And drop they amount of splash damage clan PPC's get, god thats a joke

Twelve seconds!

That is a very long time.

One one thousand
two one thousand
three one thousand
four one thousand
five one thousand
six one thounsand

Sick of reading yet? wait we are half way there

Seven one thousand
eight one thousnad
nine one thousand
ten one thousand
eleven one thousand
Twelve one thousand

Hey I can shoot now!....miss...

One one thousand
Two one thousand....Why do I have this weapon?

[The6thMessenger]

Hit the Deck, on 21 January 2017 - 03:17 AM, said:

STDs are not for zombieing but for those builds where you need all of ST slots free, and Heavy Gauss Rifles (and LB-20X, but PGI must make LB weapons not suck first).

As you can already guess, they wouldn't be that many.

Lel, with LFE just 2 ST slots required, AC20 is actually possible so it's more reason to obsolete STD.

[Hit the Deck]

The6thMessenger, on 21 January 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

Lel, with LFE just 2 ST slots required, AC20 is actually possible so it's more reason to obsolete STD.

Like I said, the builds using STD wouldn't be many. It's absolutely critical for HGR builds though.

On the IS side, the reason for STD (and LFE) are basically crit slot requirements. Clan doesn't really have this issue because of their smaller (and lighter) equipment, unless if they want to pack dual Gauss on an ST.

In this vein, the (IS) 3 engine classes are not viewed as sidegrades, but you pick the correct one out of necessity.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 21 January 2017 - 03:53 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Hit the Deck, on 21 January 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

Like I said, the builds using STD wouldn't be many. It's absolutely critical for HGR builds though.

On the IS side, the reason for STD (and LFE) are basically crit slot requirements. Clan doesn't really have this issue because of their smaller (and lighter) equipment, unless if they want to pack dual Gauss on an ST.

In this vein, the (IS) 3 engine classes are not viewed as sidegrades, but you pick the correct one out of necessity.

For any 'Mech, Clan or IS, you always pick the necessary engine. The problem is that the options you are compelled to use do not result in two 'Mechs that are comparable to each other.

[Agent1190]

As stated earlier - you can't introduce Light Engines without figuring out a way to keep the Standard Engine viable as an option in game.

I've posted about introducing Light Engines in regards to balance before. It's a perfect lore solution without making non-lore changes to either the IS Standard, IS XL or the Clan XL engine. My thoughts were to make IS Light Engines the same number of crits as a XL engine (6 CT and 3 each ST). That wouldn't be much of a deal breaker. For Mechs that want to run AC20s in the side Torsos, they would still need Standard Engines (making Standard Engines viable). Between that and the ability to Zombie, it's an advantage the Standard Engine would have over the other options.

The other option would be to make Clan BattleMechs use IS engines (like the current Standard Engines) with the same penalties regardless of tech base.

[dario03]

Agent1190, on 21 January 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

As stated earlier - you can't introduce Light Engines without figuring out a way to keep the Standard Engine viable as an option in game.

I've posted about introducing Light Engines in regards to balance before. It's a perfect lore solution without making non-lore changes to either the IS Standard, IS XL or the Clan XL engine. My thoughts were to make IS Light Engines the same number of crits as a XL engine (6 CT and 3 each ST). That wouldn't be much of a deal breaker. For Mechs that want to run AC20s in the side Torsos, they would still need Standard Engines (making Standard Engines viable). Between that and the ability to Zombie, it's an advantage the Standard Engine would have over the other options.

The other option would be to make Clan BattleMechs use IS engines (like the current Standard Engines) with the same penalties regardless of tech base.

You could just tie some quirks to engine type per mech. Not the engines themselves but the mech would have a different level of quirks or skill node points in the new system based on what engine it takes.

Clan:
XL- nothing extra
Standard- good amount extra

IS:
XL: little extra
LFE: little extra
Standard: good amount extra

Edited by dario03, 21 January 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

As stated earlier - you can't introduce Light Engines without figuring out a way to keep the Standard Engine viable as an option in game.

Why not? SHS is basically obsolete except in a few troll builds. What a STD does not get hit with are penalties when sides of the mech's side torso is damaged. A STD is meant to be replaced. Now it would have a place, a bad place, if there was an economy but that would make things even worse for the IS side despite the setup.

The few reason I could see the REASON to buff the STD is so that when played in STOCK mode, it is more effective. Then there are the "meta" IS energy boats that would benefit from a buffed STD, though still have a speed higher than 64KPH, and is not affected by heat/movement penalties and/or death when a torso is destroyed, or brawlers like the Atlas...

[naterist]

If they do, then i hope they introduce a clan xxl engine. Then both sides would have the same spread of death conditions.

Clan standerd= is standerd
Clan xl ~=~ lfe
Clan xxl ~=~ IS xl