28 replies to this topic

[Bombast]

Idea from Twitter (Horse ‏@dboerner3, whoever you are) - CASE or CASE II protected STs prevent ST engine destruction (Unless it's both STs).

Thoughts? Obviously not 'canon,' but since CASE is kind of useless now anyway, why not?

[Snazzy Dragon]

It costs tonnage and slots which is extremely valuable for IS mechs so I don't have an issue with it. But all the TT purists are going to whine about how CASE only stops ammo explosions and its only use on XLs was to keep repair costs to a minimum on XL ammo based mechs and that IS XL should be strictly inferior to the clan XL for the sake of "muh lore"

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Heh, manditory CASE for IS mechs with XL and the extra slot it takes up and still dying on both ST loss may make up the difference in structure, and now armor boosts, IS mechs get commonly and leave IS and Clan equal when it comes to XL engines.

I still prefer the whole "just give really high armor and structure boosts" to IS mechs thing so that I can tank for days if I twist a little. I get enough of the "weak but have a safety net" play style from Clan mechs.

[Davegt27]

all Clan Mechs have case right?

[Bombast]

Davegt27, on 30 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

all Clan Mechs have case right?

Yup.

[Andi Nagasia]

i dont think that would work well,

just think for Spending 1ton you turn any XL into a C-XL,
this would render IS-STD engines useless(exept for some Special Builds)

i think it would be a better idea to have Case give +10 Structure to the Component it rests in,
that or have it give Strucutre = to 20% of the Mechs Tonnage(100Ton Mech = +20Case Structure)

[FupDup]

This would basically impose a 1 ton and 2 slot tax on every single IS mech.

Also makes STD engines even crappier.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The closest thing to a quick fix is simply to remove ST death entirely and instead give STD engines a significant internal structure buff to the torso locations (and I do mean significant, to make up for how much tonnage you lose by using a STD engine).

When LFEs come out, make them a hybrid between XLs and STDs (half the hitpoints added compared to a STD).

Since cXLs are still better than XLs just because of critical slots even if everything else is equal, PGI might do something like give IS engines a bonus engine heat sink slot (as in, 250+ gets a HS slot, 275+ gets 2, 300+ gets 3, and so on).

[Sorbic]

I'd be happy if Case just reduced the dmg caused by ammo explosions. I have 127 IS mechs and I don't think case is installed on a single one.

[cazidin]

Sure, but what about the now even MORE obsoleted Standard Engine?

[Y E O N N E]

Absolutely not.

If you want CASE to prevent ammo/Gauss explosions from dealing damage to the torso section, that would be tolerable, but I still wrinkle my nose at the thought of imposing a 0.5 ton, 1 slot penalty on top of the extra 3 tons and one slot just to be able to run a Gauss in the ST with an XL.

[FupDup]

Sorbic, on 30 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

I'd be happy if Case just reduced the dmg caused by ammo explosions. I have 127 IS mechs and I don't think case is installed on a single one.

IS CASE should basically be turned into CASE II. Clan CASE stays the same since it's free.

Clan CASE II will mirror the newly buffed IS CASE, and IS CASE II will be even betterer.

[GreyNovember]

cazidin, on 30 January 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

Sure, but what about the now even MORE obsoleted Standard Engine?

Is this even actually a legitimate concern?

Why do you care about it?

[FupDup]

GreyNovember, on 30 January 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

Is this even actually a legitimate concern?

Yes, it is. Objectively obsolete/inferior mechs and tech goes against the balancing philosophy that PGI has claimed to have over all these years.

[Revis Volek]

FupDup, on 30 January 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

This would basically impose a 1 ton and 2 slot tax on every single IS mech.

Also makes STD engines even crappier.

MOAR TAX FOR IS MECHS, DHS, ENDO, CASE/UBERCASE!

[cazidin]

GreyNovember, on 30 January 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

Is this even actually a legitimate concern?

Why do you care about it?

Minor reasons, like game balance, depth, and not obsoleting tech.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Sorbic, on 30 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

I'd be happy if Case just reduced the dmg caused by ammo explosions. I have 127 IS mechs and I don't think case is installed on a single one.

Only one I have CASE on is my atlas brawler so losing a ST to ammo explosion doesn't blow out the CT as well. Everything else is kind of dead already anyway.

[Y E O N N E]

I use CASE on my MAD-BH2 so Gauss does nothing to the CT when it inevitably goes, but that's it.

[Chados]

I'd be cool with it, but purists won't like it.

[Pjwned]

Maybe--and I mean maybe--it would be acceptable if you needed to mount 1 CASE for each engine crit slot.

Even then it's still a bad idea for reasons stated above, it's a pretty arbitrary solution, and it would require PGI to have a true engine crit implementation instead of SidesToDie = X.

Honestly, PGI should just do a true engine crit system anyways and then Clan mechs would be a little more fragile if they already have a side torso blown off; maybe even revert the increased engine heatsink penalty as a result too although more likely not.