40 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 June 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

this topic isnt about XL Death though, but increasing Free Crits to IS mechs,

The topic is about balancing XL engines between Clan and IS. Therefore stating there is no balance until both have the same death requirements is on topic.

Changing heat sinks has no value if taking an XL engine causes you to die faster. The only reason I'll ever take an XL engine in my IS mechs is when I've tested and proven that the CT dies faster than the STs 80% of the time or greater. At that point I'll use an XL. The amount of heat sinks has absolutely no bearing on why I would pick an XL.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ruar, on 16 June 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

The topic is about balancing XL engines between Clan and IS. Therefore stating there is no balance until both have the same death requirements is on topic.

Changing heat sinks has no value if taking an XL engine causes you to die faster. The only reason I'll ever take an XL engine in my IS mechs is when I've tested and proven that the CT dies faster than the STs 80% of the time or greater. At that point I'll use an XL. The amount of heat sinks has absolutely no bearing on why I would pick an XL.

but this topic isnt about Balancing C-XL to IS-XL thats another topic all together,
this Topic is about allowing IS Engines to take 4 Extra Internal DHSs(or HSs(12Crits)
for the Purpose of alleviating some of the burden of 14Crit IS-Endo and IS-Ferro,

the IS-XL survivability Topic is a discussion that has and needs to happen,
but thats another Topic, this is more about the Space Upgrade take up than it is about Engines survivability,

[Ruar]

Having more HS on STD engines is a good idea. Would make them more appealing.

If the concern is space taken up by Endo and Ferro then it seems simpler to just address those and have their crit slots reduced. Adding heat sinks to engines is a method, but it's a round about approach instead of just dealing with the actual problem.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ruar, on 16 June 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

Having more HS on STD engines is a good idea. Would make them more appealing.

If the concern is space taken up by Endo and Ferro then it seems simpler to just address those and have their crit slots reduced. Adding heat sinks to engines is a method, but it's a round about approach instead of just dealing with the actual problem.

the problem is PGI has been rather adimant about keeping Crit Slots as close to TT as possible,
and also if you change the Crit Slots for Endo and Ferro you have to then change them for all Upgrades,
Light/Heavy-Ferro, Composite-Endo, as well as Stealth/Reactive/Reflective Armor,

where as changing how many Internal HSs IS engines have is an easy way to keep both factions different,
wail also bringing upgrades closer to each other in forms of balance(though IS Ferro does need to be doubled)
as i said this mostly helps IS lights, as they are usually forced to take both Endo & Ferro,

this change would be rather Simple,

Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_XL_300" id="3358">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300_desc" nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="12" weight="15.5" rating="300" [b]sidesToDie="1" [/b]sideSlots="3" slots="6"/>

Change the (heatsinks="12") to (heatsinks="16")

Module faction="InnerSphere" CType="CEngineStats" name="Engine_XL_300" id="3358">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300_desc" nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_300"/>
<EngineStats health="15" heatsinks="16" weight="15.5" rating="300" [b]sidesToDie="1" [/b]sideSlots="3" slots="6"/>

done, test on the PTS, and if it doesnt have the Right Result no harm done,
(you would need to change 121 Items(as IS have 121 Engines(60XL)(61STD)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 June 2017 - 12:11 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 June 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

the problem is PGI has been rather adimant about keeping Crit Slots as close to TT as possible,
and also if you change the Crit Slots for Endo and Ferro you have to then change them for all Upgrades,
Light/Heavy-Ferro, Composite-Endo, as well as Stealth/Reactive/Reflective Armor,

where as changing how many Internal HSs IS engines have is an easy way to keep both factions different,
wail also bringing upgrades closer to each other in forms of balance(though IS Ferro does need to be doubled)
as i said this mostly helps IS lights, as they are usually forced to take both Endo & Ferro,

See, but changing the internal HS count is somewhat akin to changing slot/weight count. It's a fundamental part of BattleTech construction rules. Meanwhile, we've got some weapons running hotter than even their canonical BT counterparts, and those are actually the ones driving the "too hot for the DHS count and range bracket" problem the IS have. Fix those. Your solution is needlessly complex.

[Andi Nagasia]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 June 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

See, but changing the internal HS count is somewhat akin to changing slot/weight count. It's a fundamental part of BattleTech construction rules. Meanwhile, we've got some weapons running hotter than even their canonical BT counterparts, and those are actually the ones driving the "too hot for the DHS count and range bracket" problem the IS have. Fix those. Your solution is needlessly complex.

true but Clan being stronger than IS is also in the Rules, but we have to be flexable for balance,
this idea keeps with the idea that both sides(IS and Clan) can be Different but Balanced,
i dont think so, its actually simple in both design, and implementation,

as ive shown it would be simple to implement and test, it may not work,
but then again it may, and work well, i think it could warrant a simple PTS,
as ive said it would only take changing 121 Items in the Registry,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 June 2017 - 12:17 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 June 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

true but Clan being stronger than IS is also in the Rules, but we have to be flexable for balance,
this idea keeps with the idea that both sides(IS and Clan) can be Different but Balanced,
i dont think so, its actually simple in both design, and implementation,

as ive shown it would be simple to implement and test, it may not work,
but then again it may, and work well, i think it could warrant a simple PTS,
as ive said it would only take changing 121 Items in the Registry,

We've already been adjusting damage, heat, rate of fire, duration of fire, and health to manage the imbalance between Clans and IS. Why should we start using a new method when the problem, especially ones that are even more fundamental to the game than the above?

There is nothing simple about implementing a PTS run. It costs a lot of money to develop the mechanic to a playable point, run the PTS servers, patch the PTS client, and push it out.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Yeonne Greene,
i understand but none of those things are addressing the Upgrade Crit Cost imbalance,
but to keep IS & Clan flavor im not advocating just a reduction in those Crits, hence this idea,

i understand and am not trying to make light of the Effort needed to Launch a PTS,
im just saying that its possible to test this with a XML edit, if im understanding the Coding Correctly,

[Brain Cancer]

I'd say "nah".

The idea of balancing two intentionally imbalanced tech trees only made sense inside Paul's head, and even then was probably obscured by the thought of selling zillions of Timber Wolves.

In most other games, it'd be a tiered system and Clan 'Mechs would be the equivalent of higher-tier designs, we'd have our IS Tier fights, our Clan tier fights and the endless suffering of "rebalancing" going on for years now would never have happened, as each tech tree would only need balancing against ITSELF.

[Angel of Annihilation]

You know this would be a great topic if it wasn't for the fact that things are pretty well balanced as is and the IS wasn't going to be getting a huge tech drop that will dramatically buff most IS mech in just 4-5 weeks.

[Grus]

Viktor Drake, on 16 June 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

You know this would be a great topic if it wasn't for the fact that things are pretty well balanced as is and the IS wasn't going to be getting a huge tech drop that will dramatically buff most IS mech in just 4-5 weeks.

this... LFE is going to be interesting. But IS lights don't need any help that just need better pilots.

[Andi Nagasia]

Viktor Drake, on 16 June 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

You know this would be a great topic if it wasn't for the fact that things are pretty well balanced as is and the IS wasn't going to be getting a huge tech drop that will dramatically buff most IS mech in just 4-5 weeks.

well this mostly give Lights some Extra room, and Energy boats 1-2 more Heat Sinks,
its not ganna be a ground breaking advancement, just an interesting option to help IS Crit Space,

[Grus]

I dont wanna drop the "Clan better because lore" coin.. but yall makeing it hard..

Andi Nagasia, on 16 June 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

well this mostly give Lights some Extra room, and Energy boats 1-2 more Heat Sinks,
its not ganna be a ground breaking advancement, just an interesting option to help IS Crit Space,

IS already has a better refire rate then clan as it is. Per trigger pull yes clan does more damage but IS can KEEP firing well after a Clan mech shuts down.

Edited by Grus, 16 June 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Deathpig]

The easier balance fix (IMO) is lowering the penalty for Clan XL damage, using that new penalty for the upcoming Light Fusion engines, and using the current Clan XL damage penalty for IS 'Mechs.

If XLs aren't deathtraps, then IS would use them. If IS uses them, they gain some combination of firepower/mobility/armor, and the balance gap should narrow considerably.

There's no good 'fun' reason why torso loss should equal death for IS. It's actually kind of lame, considering the rest of the 'fun' balance decisions that have already occurred that deviate from TT representation.

Edited by Deathpig, 16 June 2017 - 03:19 PM.

[Grus]

Deathpig, on 16 June 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

The easier balance fix (IMO) is lowering the penalty for Clan XL damage, using that new penalty for the upcoming Light Fusion engines, and using the current Clan XL damage penalty for IS 'Mechs.

If XLs aren't deathtraps, then IS would use them. If IS uses them, they gain some combination of firepower/mobility/armor, and the balance gap should narrow considerably.

There's no good 'fun' reason why torso loss should equal death for IS. It's actually kind of lame, considering the rest of the 'fun' balance decisions that have already occurred that deviate from TT representation.

while we are at it can Clan omni mech's have the ability to change eng side? Thanks.

[Andi Nagasia]

Deathpig, on 16 June 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

The easier balance fix (IMO) is lowering the penalty for Clan XL damage, using that new penalty for the upcoming Light Fusion engines, and using the current Clan XL damage penalty for IS 'Mechs.

If XLs aren't deathtraps, then IS would use them. If IS uses them, they gain some combination of firepower/mobility/armor, and the balance gap should narrow considerably.

There's no good 'fun' reason why torso loss should equal death for IS. It's actually kind of lame, considering the rest of the 'fun' balance decisions that have already occurred that deviate from TT representation.

XL engine balance is another Topic,
this is about increasing IS Engine Internal HSs to help their Crit Limits,

[Mcgral18]

Viktor Drake, on 16 June 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

You know this would be a great topic if it wasn't for the fact that things are pretty well balanced as is and the IS wasn't going to be getting a huge tech drop that will dramatically buff most IS mech in just 4-5 weeks.

Balance by quirks isn't balance

It's inherent imbalance, because robots can't compete without them
Not all robots get enough of them, and the inferior equipment REALLY shows itself there.

Of course, poorly designed robots will perform poorly for either faction, but the top of either, the winner is obvious without quirks.

[Y E O N N E]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 June 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

@Yeonne Greene,
i understand but none of those things are addressing the Upgrade Crit Cost imbalance,
but to keep IS & Clan flavor im not advocating just a reduction in those Crits, hence this idea,

i understand and am not trying to make light of the Effort needed to Launch a PTS,
im just saying that its possible to test this with a XML edit, if im understanding the Coding Correctly,

You aren't thinking in terms if capabilities. Ask yourself, what is the drawback to not having enough crits for weapons and heatsinks? It is being unable to adequately cool builds that need it. That is all you are solving with your suggestion, and that is better solved by lowering heat on the weapons increasing the cooling potential if the heatsinks so you need less of them.

It is a bad idea.

[Andi Nagasia]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 June 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

You aren't thinking in terms if capabilities. Ask yourself, what is the drawback to not having enough crits for weapons and heatsinks? It is being unable to adequately cool builds that need it. That is all you are solving with your suggestion, and that is better solved by lowering heat on the weapons increasing the cooling potential if the heatsinks so you need less of them.

It is a bad idea.

well i was also considering the benefit to sub 250 IS Engines,
which was the initial reason i started this Topic, to help IS Light Mechs,

patch notes are up, with Energy weapon Changes,
i guess we'll have to see how they play out,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 June 2017 - 06:58 PM.

[Mystere]

Andi Nagasia, on 16 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

ok, how des the the IP itself show the way?

Do I really need to elaborate given my known position on Clan vs. IS balance.

Edited by Mystere, 16 June 2017 - 07:13 PM.