29 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

As simple as possible, STD is only picked mainly when you need to use all ST slots and not to make your 'Mechs tankier.

Buffing STD so it gives various buffs, which is usually heading to the tank direction, when equipped in order to make it as appealing as XL is the wrong way to start IMO. Rather, STD should be buffed with the intention to help 'Mechs which have to use it (because of optimal build reason) like the brawler Atlas or penta AC/5 Mauler. Don't forget that future Heavy Gauss Rifle necessitates the use of STD!

There are currently almost no specific combat roles in MWO and what you do is just to kill the enemy 'Mechs as fast and as many as possible. In this kind of environment it is therefore, firepower as being the most important factor followed by mobility. You only need to be as tanky as possible so you can last until the end of the match. Intentionally building a "tank" 'Mech by equipping STD is no fun (because there is no tank role) nor does it serve any meaningful purpose.

The STD engine is not a sidegrade to the XL engine and vice versa. Each serves a specific purpose to make optimal builds. On some 'Mechs like the King Crab though, the two engines can sometimes be considered as two equal choices.

Comments?



PS: I wanted to touch LFE but I guess I shouldn't. It's a pretty harmless item because it doesn't really do anything much for balance and implementing it should only take 15 minutes (copy-pasting the prive values is not included). More stuff for IS is always welcomed.

PPS: yes, the isXL can be buffed to help isMechs fight against cMechs.

[ingramli]

Let me quote my view here,
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5588482

ingramli, on 25 January 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:

I do have a thought regarding the alternative to current approach of ST death/penalty, and here's is my idea,

1. Make critical hit to engine slot for XL and LFE become possible,

2. separate each engine critical slot so that they have individual health,

3. For ALL XL/LF engine, when the health of a critical slot of the engine become "0", that section of engine is considered "destroyed", and the performance (speed, turning, and cooling capability) degrades according to the number of engine section(s) being destroyed.

4. When 3 sections of Clan/IS XL engine is destroyed, all the internal engine heat sinks, and any extra mounted on it are considered total loss, if the mech had got no external heat sinks intact in other sections, the mech will not get any cooling anymore and eventually killed by heat, external heat sinks and cool shot will help though,

5. A destroyed side torso will take all the engine sections mounted on it gone together, so yes, a IS mech will get zero cooling when a ST is gone, provided that it use XL engine with no extra heat sinks mounted somewhere else. There will be no further cooling for its weapon, but not sudden death.

6. Both clan and IS mechs can loss all the engine's cooling capabilities without any ST blown off, provided that sufficient amount of engine sections are destroyed.

7. STD is immune to critical hit, and thus the engine's output/cooling capabilities will remain 100% during the life of the mech, until the CT is gone, so essentially there is no change to it;

8. On a balancing purpose, IS can get more health for each engine section if necessary.

[Duke Nedo]

Hit the Deck, on 25 January 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

Hell no. Just because the only way to squeeze some things into the ST makes it impossible to also fit an XL engines does absolutely nothing to make the STD engine worth that extreme tonnage handicap it imposes.

What you do is that you just build the corresponding build on a clan XL mech instead and profit, or on an IS mech with arm ballistics.

Edit: Let me also add that the fact that a Mauler or Atlas can make a particular build does absolutely nothing for a Stalker or Awesome that is stuck with a STD engine because the engine cap/hitboxes.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 25 January 2017 - 04:31 AM.

[Tristan Winter]

I disagree.

There is no tank role right now, but there easily could be. We have 4 different classes and it's generally accepted that it's a good idea for assault mechs to lead the charge instead of medium mechs when a team decides to push, unless all mechs can push simultaneously. And it's generally accepted that the Atlas is better at pushing than, say, the Awesome.

I don't see any reason why STD engine should be connected to certain builds except in the relatively rare circumstances where STD engines are the only option (e.g. dual gaus Orion IIC or AC20 Atlas). In lore and in tabletop, STD engines are common across the board. (You can argue that it was never meant to be, but remember that we're operating in a universe where Clan and IS are supposed to be evenly matched, and the Shadow Hawk is supposed to be evenly matched with a Stormcrow)

What percentage of viable builds in MWO have to use STD engines because they have no other choice? 1%? How does it make sense to have that as your starting point? It's like saying single heat sinks should be balanced around the AC2 Locust, because that's one of the few builds that need SHS.

[Tarogato]

Hit the Deck, on 25 January 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

Intentionally building a "tank" 'Mech by equipping STD is no fun (because there is no tank role) nor does it serve any meaningful purpose.

There actually is a tank role, though. The Atlas and HBK-4SP are pinnacle examples, and the Griffin to a lesser extent. I wish more mechs were quirked so that they could fulfill this role, however. The Orion, the Zeus, the Kintaro, possibly even the Urbanmech, Thunderbolt, Vindicator, and Orion IIC.

Edited by Tarogato, 25 January 2017 - 04:29 AM.

[Tristan Winter]

Tarogato, on 25 January 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

There actually is a tank role, though. The Atlas and HBK-4SP are pinnacle examples, and the Griffin to a lesser extent. I wish more mechs were quirked so that they could fulfill this role, however. The Orion, the Zeus, the Kintaro, possibly even the Urbanmech, Thunderbolt, and Orion IIC.

Not to mention that PGI is currently actively trying to create especially tanky mechs by handing out big armour buffs, as an alternative to giving them bigger mobility or weapon quirks. Victor, Highlander, Wolfhound, etc.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Thunderbolt should definitely be a tanky mech. Its claim to fame as a 65 tonner was always that it was tougher than most top end mechs of the heavy range (like the 10 ton heavier Marauder) and even outarmored several assault mechs. Thunderbolts are tough sons-of-guns in TT and lore!

[kesmai]

Steinar Bergstol, on 25 January 2017 - 04:52 AM, said:

Thunderbolt should definitely be a tanky mech. Its claim to fame as a 65 tonner was always that it was tougher than most top end mechs of the heavy range (like the 10 ton heavier Marauder) and even outarmored several assault mechs. Thunderbolts are tough sons-of-guns in TT and lore!

*sigh* unlimited customization *sigh*
--> forget about lore. Everyone is telling you gameplay > lore.
Exactly this is what we've got and what will be delivered "gameplay >lore". If it makes sense or not.

[adamts01]

Tarogato, on 25 January 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

There actually is a tank role, though. The Atlas and HBK-4SP are pinnacle examples, and the Griffin to a lesser extent.

There WAS a tank role. The Atlas just can't compete in this new MWO. The Kodiak deals the same alpha but cooler and over sniper ranges in a faster platform that doesn't take return fire thanks to high mounts. There's just zero place for the Atlas aside from 12 Atlas rushes in CW for LOLs. The Oxide has the same Alpha at twice the speed in a smaller package and is able to deal that damage without taking any return fire. Very sad days indeed. OK, back to Arma 3.

[Steinar Bergstol]

kesmai, on 25 January 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

*sigh* unlimited customization *sigh*
--> forget about lore. Everyone is telling you gameplay > lore.
Exactly this is what we've got and what will be delivered "gameplay >lore". If it makes sense or not.

I know. I know. Heck, if it was up to me customization would be severely limited, but I and those like me are in a minority, so that isn't going to happen. I know that. Still, I can dream of a world where mechlabs didn't strip mechs of their "personality" in favour of everything being max-armored gunbags. Maybe some day, but this is not that day.

[El Bandito]

If this game had convergence mechanics, I would suggest Std engine to give bonus to stability, thus faster convergence time than that of XL engine, thus directly benefiting Std engined mechs' firepower. Alas, this arcadey Mechwarrior game does not even use convergence mechanic.

Bugger.

[Horseman]

Hit the Deck, on 25 January 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

There are currently almost no specific combat roles in MWO and what you do is just to kill the enemy 'Mechs as fast and as many as possible. In this kind of environment it is therefore, firepower as being the most important factor followed by mobility. You only need to be as tanky as possible so you can last until the end of the match.

While I agree, that last sentence points out the obvious caveat: you're doing no damage when you're dead.

Hit the Deck, on 25 January 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

The STD engine is not a sidegrade to the XL engine and vice versa. Each serves a specific purpose to make optimal builds. On some 'Mechs like the King Crab though, the two engines can sometimes be considered as two equal choices.

In the current design, IS XLs add a major vulnerability in trade for the weight and/or mobility advantages. In some chassis you just have to grit your teeth and bear it, in others there's a measure of choice - then this should be informed by how easy it is to roll damage in the given chassis and how vulnerable your side torso hitboxes are.

I feel that if PGI followed the tabletop engine destruction mechanics instead, the disparity wouldn't be as large (you could destroy the engine without having to annihilate the torso section as a whole).

[Hit the Deck]

Tristan Winter, on 25 January 2017 - 04:26 AM, said:

In lore and in tabletop, STD engines are common across the board.

I guess it is mainly because STD are cheaper than XL. Anything in TT could happen because it has Battle Value to balance everything.

Tarogato, on 25 January 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

There actually is a tank role, though. The Atlas and HBK-4SP are pinnacle examples, and the Griffin to a lesser extent. I wish more mechs were quirked so that they could fulfill this role, however. The Orion, the Zeus, the Kintaro, possibly even the Urbanmech, Thunderbolt, Vindicator, and Orion IIC.

The Atlas is stuck to the brawler role not because it wants to.

By using XL275 the HBK-4SP can swap its 4x ML to 4x MPL and add one more DHS but I guess it's not really worth it.

Horseman, on 25 January 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

...
I feel that if PGI followed the tabletop engine destruction mechanics instead, the disparity wouldn't be as large (you could destroy the engine without having to annihilate the torso section as a whole).

PGI has said that enabling individual crit destruction decreased TTK according to their internal testing. How true that is I don't know.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 25 January 2017 - 05:50 AM.

[The Lighthouse]

I must remind you guys that the whole Battletech universe is pretty much endless power creep as the date advanced. While I keep saying that this game hardly has any lore..... well, when the root itself has the power creep...

[Tristan Winter]

Hit the Deck, on 25 January 2017 - 05:49 AM, said:

I guess it is mainly because STD are cheaper than XL. Anything in TT could happen because it has Battle Value to balance everything.
.

Yes, but you could say the same about different mechs and different tech too. The Urbanmech and Locust aren't meant to be on our with every other light much. Not all weapons are supposed to be equally good. In TT, it's not a problem if ER medium lasers are better than normal ones. But MWO tries to balance these things. Precisely because there's no BV.

[Hit the Deck]

Tristan Winter, on 25 January 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

Yes, but you could say the same about different mechs and different tech too. The Urbanmech and Locust aren't meant to be on our with every other light much. Not all weapons are supposed to be equally good. In TT, it's not a problem if ER medium lasers are better than normal ones. But MWO tries to balance these things. Precisely because there's no BV.

I was just commenting your statement regarding the ubiquitoueness of STD in TT.

Anyway, I still think that trying to make STD as attractive as XL would end up ugly. As an aIternative solution to make STD more meaningful (I know that "more meaningful" is not what you and some others want), I prefer that PGI introduces some equipment which make STD more or less mandatory. The Heavy Gauss Rifle being one of those (equipment), can't think of others. It has to do with crit slots since that what STD offers.

[Mcgral18]

I don't like Legacy Tech, so I don't like your idea

For mechs who cannot mount hGauss or whatnot, the STD becomes an invalid choice
That's LegacyTech™, and that's bad

[Horseman]

Hit the Deck, on 25 January 2017 - 05:49 AM, said:

PGI has said that enabling individual crit destruction decreased TTK according to their internal testing. How true that is I don't know.

Which is why the solution would be to go around the TT abstraction to what it represents: chipping away the engine's structural integrity. Give it a fairly decent component health and it could work just fine.

[Almond Brown]

kesmai, on 25 January 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

*sigh* unlimited customization *sigh*
--> forget about lore. Everyone is telling you gameplay > lore.
Exactly this is what we've got and what will be delivered "gameplay >lore". If it makes sense or not.

Just to reiterate kesmai's point.

Lore T-Bolt

Take that Stock build into MWO and see how well it plays.

[Coolant]

i occasionally use a standard engine when I have the extra tonnage, but I hate losing a torso and therefore half my firepower (or more)...i'm gimped from that point on and can't help my team much, so I would rather just have an XL, die from a torso and sit out rather than walk around a half-mech.

Course respawn would be a solution...