90 replies to this topic

[Snazzy Dragon]

isXL in anything over 50 tons just is not very much fun with all the pinpoint front loaded damage running around lately

With many mechs like the black knight and warhammer that have lost a good deal of both offensive and defensive quirks, they simply feel like death traps rather than a tool to increase firepower, and even with the XL I'm often disappointed with the firepower because I know I could get better out of a Clan mech - the heat does not matter to me because of the sheer boatability of cDHS as well and I know that I can afford to make more trades with that mech because of cXL

I've been trying to finish out mastering my warhammers lately, as an example, but the feeling constant paranoia over getting hit in a side torso that has red armor and getting hit by some PPFLD shot getting crit and smashing that ST into oblivion is overriding the sheer fun factor of dakkadakkadakka doom on a black widow

The slightest lapse in concentration and/or mistake in twisting can end your match so fast right now in an isXL heavy or assault and in games with higher average skill more players will know from your loadout if they can instagib you on a ST destruction

Subbing out a STD engine you lose too much speed and firepower to be relevant and often you will be left behind because you cannot keep up in a 50-55KPH mech anymore and really when your heavy has the firepower of something 30 tons lighter with clan tech you are not really an asset worth keeping to the team anyway

I know that the overriding argument is "just git gud" but I'm only human- I make mistakes in matches, teams aren't perfect, and I'm not an ultrametatier player by any means-- and in clan mechs I can at least pull something out of it, on an isXL I am just dead and that is not much fun

[MischiefSC]

Yeah, 7 pts of structure doesn't quite world as well as being able to soak both ST before you go down.

CXL essentially means you have all the benefits of an XL weight savings until you lose a ST - at which point you lose the speed the larger engine gave you and the cooling benefits you got from more in engine slots. So you're an XL with all the perks until you lose a ST - then you're like a STD with a missing ST.

No real easy way to offset that level of advantage without huge quirks.

[Big MO]

The mech has to really be XL.friendly to get away with it for heavies and assaults. Based on my playstyle, I struggle with most mechs below 70 kph, and have a really difficult time under 60 kph. For the warhammers, I had to go completely laser meta - LPL and medium lasers. One assault that I have found to be surprisingly XL friendly is the Banshee. I enjoy the 3M with the big XL400 in it. (got that engine during one of the events last year). High mounts, nice shield arms, goes 73 with speed tweek. Give it a try if you haven't already.

[The Lighthouse]

I mean, as long as your mech goes as same as or faster than 60kph (for assault mechs), it seems it works ok with pub games and so forth.

The problem is that the current meta is PPFLD, which really does not favor IS XL engine.

[MechaBattler]

What if IS XLs gave a performance bonus? 12% turn rate, 20% acceleration/Deceleration, 3% speed tweak.

And standards give 25% more structure to each torso.

If we ever get the LFE. It can get 10% turn rate, and 10% structure bonus, since it's still inferior to a Clan XL.

[GrimRiver]

Thus is the reason why I only run XL's in lights, because their speed helps me dodge that alpha which would otherwise 1 shot any of my other mechs ST's.

But alas, I don't run lights anymore since they got shafted due to rescale.

So in other words I don't use XL's now.

[MacClearly]

Haven't really noticed the Warhammer being too much worse myself but have only run them in FW. Probably that 7pts doesn't cover the alpha or at most I am thinking it means it will not be that noticable going up against Clans because that isn't even a full shot to the torso before you explode.

The Black Widow I was sad with the uac nerf which made it no good for Vitric anymore so I switched to dual guass with back meds...it's pretty fun that way and obviously cold as ice.

I know a bit off topic but the nerf to the cXL I also didn't notice. I try to run symmetrical because good players tend to pick you apart if they see you favoured one side, maybe on the deadside mechs it is much more apparent?

[The Lighthouse]

MechaBattler, on 04 February 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

What if IS XLs gave a performance bonus? 12% turn rate, 20% acceleration/Deceleration, 3% speed tweak.

And standards give 25% more structure to each torso.

If we ever get the LFE. It can get 10% turn rate, and 10% structure bonus, since it's still inferior to a Clan XL.

You are making the same mistake as PGI is doing. The problem was never been the functionality of the XL engine. We are talking about durability of the XL engine.

Thus the balance has to be related to the durability of the engine. I feel the best way to appease TT purists is that we go full TT. It means if side torsos are exposed, there is a chance that the engine simply gets damage from both side torsos (3 crits) and blow the whole thing up. However, it means the Clan mech now has a chance to just die even with both torsos are not fully destroyed. The death would be... quite random and bring some backlash from Clanners.

Gosh, as you see, very few things in this game actually adhere TT rules, why are we still trying to follow rules that are only suited for turn-based simulation, the idiocy of people really surprises me sometimes.

[MechaBattler]

The Lighthouse, on 04 February 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

You are making the same mistake as PGI is doing. The problem was never been the functionality of the XL engine. We are talking about durability of the XL engine.

Thus the balance has to be related to the durability of the engine. I feel the best way to appease TT purists is that we go full TT. It means if side torsos are exposed, there is a chance that the engine simply gets damage from both side torsos (3 crits) and blow the whole thing up. However, it means the Clan mech now has a chance to just die even with both torsos are not fully destroyed. The death would be... quite random and bring some backlash from Clanners.

Gosh, as you see, very few things in this game actually adhere TT rules, why are we still trying to follow rules that are only suited for turn-based simulation, the idiocy of people really surprises me sometimes.

Nahhh. I'm just trying to keep things different. Instead of acting all arrogant and insinuating that other people are stupid.

The way I see it the Clan XL has all of the weight savings, better survivability, and less slots. So I figure give the IS XL something it does better.

[The Lighthouse]

MechaBattler, on 04 February 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Nahhh. I'm just trying to keep things different. Instead of acting all arrogant and insinuating that other people are stupid.

The way I see it the Clan XL has all of the weight savings, better survivability, and less slots. So I figure give the IS XL something it does better.

Not sure why my post is arrogant (I mean, you sure people are NOT stupid? )

This idea of strictly following 3-crit rule was actually discussed in this forum before, and rarely, we got into the wise conclusion that it is a really, really terrible idea. (I mean, both your CT and STs are still there and suddenly your mech explodes... just how terrible would it be gameplay-wise?)

What I found amusing is that those TT purists are easily offended by some ideas, while completely ignore far more blatant omissions such as melee.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 04 February 2017 - 08:17 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

The Lighthouse, on 04 February 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

You are making the same mistake as PGI is doing. The problem was never been the functionality of the XL engine. We are talking about durability of the XL engine.

Thus the balance has to be related to the durability of the engine. I feel the best way to appease TT purists is that we go full TT. It means if side torsos are exposed, there is a chance that the engine simply gets damage from both side torsos (3 crits) and blow the whole thing up. However, it means the Clan mech now has a chance to just die even with both torsos are not fully destroyed. The death would be... quite random and bring some backlash from Clanners.

Gosh, as you see, very few things in this game actually adhere TT rules, why are we still trying to follow rules that are only suited for turn-based simulation, the idiocy of people really surprises me sometimes.

If PGI did go with engine crits.... each slot would be a crit section, and it would be where the hitpoints could be adjusted...Ultimately though it would likely decrease TTK. PGI could use the TT engine crit setup as a GUIDELINE but set it at 4 instead of 3 crits. Then either the simplified XL survives 1st ST destroyed w/differential penalties and dies on the loss of the 2nd ST, or introduce engine crits that actually affects the mech in the game instead of being a crit pad.

Quote

As for using actual engine crits, if PGI went that route it should be set it up so each slot, not each torso section, has its own hitpoints, ie 15hp. One thing would happen though, more people would actually invest more in rear armor since an arty strike or a light could take a mech out without blinking an eye, never mind friendly fire. It could also make lights easier to kill as they are running away.

[The Lighthouse]

Tarl Cabot, on 04 February 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

If PGI did go with engine crits.... each slot would be a crit section, and it would be where the hitpoints could be adjusted...Ultimately though it would likely decrease TTK. PGI could use the TT engine crit setup as a GUIDELINE but set it at 4 instead of 3 crits. Then either the simplified XL survives 1st ST destroyed w/differential penalties and dies on the loss of the 2nd ST, or introduce engine crits that actually affects the mech in the game instead of being a crit pad.

Yeah, as I just said in the above post, we had a discussion a while ago. This will significantly decrease TTK (and I think people are complaining about mechs dying too fast), and we have nasty situations as death of the mech with all three torsos still intact and sudden death from that backstabbing.

....Which is rather undesirable since it uses random chance as well as balance problem.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 04 February 2017 - 08:24 PM.

[MechaBattler]

The Lighthouse, on 04 February 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

Not sure why my post is arrogant (I mean, you sure people are NOT stupid? )

This idea of strictly following 3-crit rule was actually discussed in this forum before, and rarely, we got into the wise conclusion that it is a really, really terrible idea. (I mean, both your CT and STs are still there and suddenly your mech explodes... just how terrible would it be gameplay-wise?)

What I found amusing is that those TT purists are easily offended by some ideas, while completely ignore far more blatant omissions such as melee.

I think people just want to at least preserve some of the flavor of TT. We don't have to completely go against the grain. There's so many avenues to approach balance. I wish PGI would be a little more open to approaching these other avenues.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

Thus the balance has to be related to the durability of the engine<em><u>. I feel the best way to appease TT purists is that we go full TT. It means if side torsos are exposed, there is a chance that the engine simply gets damage from both side torsos (3 crits) and blow the whole thing up</u></em>. However, it means the Clan mech now has a chance to just die even with both torsos are not fully destroyed. The death would be... quite random and bring some backlash from Clanners.

Gosh, as you see, very few things in this game actually adhere TT rules, why are we still trying to follow rules that are only suited for turn-based simulation</u></em>, the idiocy of people really surprises me sometimes.

Lighthouse wasn't being arrogant, just snarky

The first part is how an actual engine crit system should/could work in MWO, be it a STD, cXL or isXL. A mech could be taken out without any torso section being destroyed. It would mean most of us who frontload our armor would need to rethink that setup, since a sneaky LIGHT, arty/airstrike could literally take our heavier mechs out without destroying too much, excellent for salvage....but as mentioned, it would lower TTK since at least one or two sections of a mech would not have to be obliterated. It would fit the TT, even if it was adjusted for its own flavor from 3 to 4 crits, or higher HP per slot but would it actually make the game better instead of using PGI setup as they have for the cXL, but simply carry that over to the isXL (without death w/loss of 1st ST) and have it carry over to if/when LFE, etc engines are added?

The second part is why is PGI adhering to ONLY part of the TT rules concerning 3 engine crit while leaving HOW they were generated across ALL torsos in the TT environment, not simply an on/off effect, of only partial effect in a FPS environment?

MechaBattler, on 04 February 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

I think people just want to at least preserve some of the flavor of TT. We don't have to completely go against the grain. There's so many avenues to approach balance. I wish PGI would be a little more open to approaching these other avenues.

There is flavor, and then there is keeping exactly to script for only a exact partial of that flavor with engine issues/destruction. I was actually happy when PGI the both heat movement penalty to the cXL, halfway expecting them to do something similar to isXL if/when actual working engine crit across all torsos happened, especially since MWO does not have an active heatscale.

What is funny is that early beta the testers (internal/family/IGP) complained that mechs were not dying FAST enough cause PGI had used cooldowns closer to SolarisVII delays (2.5sec rounds, so delays 1-3 rnd delays), once the cooldowns were lowered, then it was mechs were dying TOO fast as they still had their default armor/structural points.. thus the double Armor and by accident double internal structure. Pointing that out to show PGI did not have a real game plan as they had PLANNED to go to the single player campaign w/possible multiplayer aspect. But there are some things that they do not appear to want to budge from, even if it meant it could actually make being the two techs closer to parity but with their own flavor.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 05 February 2017 - 02:46 PM.

[Mcgral18]

MechaBattler, on 04 February 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

The way I see it the Clan XL has all of the weight savings, better survivability, and less slots. So I figure give the IS XL something it does better.

One option is to make it more durable, potentially

More HP per ST, but keep the death on ST



Not my favoured option, but an option I wouldn't oppose.
A higher Skill Floor and Ceiling than the cXL, reliant on torso twisting

[Battlemaster56]

Too this day I still no reason to put xl's on IS heavies and assaults even some mediums without feeling I'm gonna die a quick and frustrating death because the xl rules. For the trade off of more tonnage, and speed for increased vulnerability is not worth it to me since everyone can precisely shoot the free kill ST with ease these days.

I'm still supporting the idea of letting IS xl's survive a ST loss, just with a slightly larger penalty (example:30% reduce mobility, and 45% increased heat seems fair). But alas I think the balance team is unwilling to do something so simple.

[nehebkau]

PGI has demonstrated that their view of "balance" means that there isn't balance except on the "BIG SPREADSHEET OF BALANCE THINGIES". So, if in real life the sky is blue and the "BIG SPREADSHEET OF BALANCE THINGIES" reads that the sky is green, according to PGI the sky is green and everyone else is wrong.

[Battlemaster56]

nehebkau, on 05 February 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

PGI has demonstrated that their view of "balance" means that there isn't balance except on the "BIG SPREADSHEET OF BALANCE THINGIES". So, if in real life the sky is blue and the "BIG SPREADSHEET OF BALANCE THINGIES" reads that the sky is green, according to PGI the sky is green and everyone else is wrong.

[Tarogato]

Snazzy Dragon, on 04 February 2017 - 07:09 PM, said:

isXL in anything over 50 tons just is not very much fun with all the pinpoint front loaded damage running around lately

[...]

I've been trying to finish out mastering my warhammers lately, as an example, but the feeling constant paranoia over getting hit in a side torso that has red armor and getting hit by some PPFLD shot getting crit and smashing that ST into oblivion is overriding the sheer fun factor of dakkadakkadakka doom on a black widow

I think you hit the nail on the head and this wasn't something I had really properly considered. IS XL felt a lot better during the laservomit meta, but now it feels like a liability in the PPFLD meta. So not only is PPFLD meta the strongest meta right now, but it's also bad for Clan/IS balance (which is two-fold, because it's harder on IS XL engines, and IS can't do PPFLD).

Unfortunately, the only way to nerf this meta is to make those weapons useless on non-meta mechs. For instance, cGauss is overpowered on KDK and NTG, but currently it's weaksauce on a SCR, SMN, or HBR. We can't nerf cGauss as a whole, because that would upset the balance further. We can't nerf the KDK without also hurting the other KDK variants that aren't good.

I think the only solution is negative quirks for specific weapons on specific mechs, unless somebody has a better idea on how to nerf specific weapon combinations on only specific mechs. The alternative is to nerf the PPFLD weapons into the ground, but positively quirk literally every mech in the game that isn't at the top of the meta. Which is unwieldy.

At least this might be possible with the new Skill Tree, if the new system allows individual mechs to have independent trees. For instance, you'd nerf cGauss and cERPPC significantly from it's current state, and maybe the KDK, NTG, etc would not get cGauss or PPC options in the skill tree at all. But every other mech would, so that they could spec into skills to make their cGauss and/or cERPPC decent and worth taking. But then you introduce the problem that PGI wants to effing MONETISE the new Skill Tree by requiring MC (or extra C-Bills) every time you want to respec it. So whenever you want to take a cGauss off of your mech and maybe try a cUAC/10 instead, you'd have to pony up to spec the weapons differently in the Skill Tree. Every single time.

Man this situation is just shjt right now... there's no easy way out.

Edited by Tarogato, 05 February 2017 - 02:22 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Tarogato, on 05 February 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

I think the only solution is negative quirks for specific weapons on specific mechs, unless somebody has a better idea on how to nerf specific weapon combinations on only specific mechs. The alternative is to nerf the PPFLD weapons into the ground, but positively quirk literally every mech in the game that isn't at the top of the meta. Which is unwieldy.

Turn all ACs into burst weapons, PPCs into beam weapons.

You may or may not like that, but it solves that problem while also being more accurate to the fluff. Gauss are still PPFLD, but they won't sync well with anything but themselves and they are heavy.