25 replies to this topic

[Ch_R0me]

So, I had some thinking, and here are some ideas I've got:

- IS XL's - instead of killing of whole unit, it would shut down for 1-5 seconds (for light the same rules as for clan XL's apply I assume), and then it would start up as it would from overheating.
- IS PPC (not ER - the standard one) - Why the reversed falloff shouldn't be implemented? If range is shorter than 90 meters, than the lower damage should be applied, like if optimal range is being exceeded.
- LRMs's - I suggest to revert to the "drunken missile" mode for IS, which should include application of the huge spread penalty for indirect fire.

Opinions?

[El Bandito]

What is this drunken missile mode you speak of?

IMO, ISPPC minimum range should just be removed, as it makes no sense balancewise, to have it.

As for your ISXL proposal, it merits further discussion.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2017 - 03:25 AM.

[Ch_R0me]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

What is this drunken missile mode you speak of?

Missiles from beta times:
https://youtu.be/qAfy2cL1hzc?t=2m

El Bandito, on 07 June 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

IMO, ISPPC minimum range should just be removed, as it makes no sense balancewise, to have it.

Hmm - my proposition is a compomise between tabletop and your proposition, but at least there should be implemented a Field Inhibitor switch - full damage without minimum range like with ER-PPC, but it may kick the PPC's EMP-like side effects on the firing mech. there would be a risk to PPC explosion due to feedback like in Gauss Rifle (10 damage for self to where exploded weapon is placed).

El Bandito, on 07 June 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

As for your ISXL proposal, it merits further discussion.

I agree on that.

Edited by ManganMan, 07 June 2017 - 03:41 AM.

[Phoolan Devi]

If the isxl should, for whatever reason, get fixed, I think the easiest and best solution would be to implement that it takes 4 engine crits to kill an engine.....done!

Why should PPC min range be fixed? It's lore and btw er-PPC are the same slot and tomnage wise. If you don't wanna have min range, just take the er.

Lurms are just fine how they work now....at least for me. The only thing that bothers me is, that I have to take range nodes to reach those precious crit, rak and velocity nodes. Why should I enhance the 900m? Not lobbing them above 500m anyways (only in very rare occations it makes sense to lob lrms above 500m).

ManganMan, on 07 June 2017 - 03:37 AM, said:

Hmm - my proposition is a compomise between tabletop and your proposition, but at least there should be implemented a Field Inhibitor switch - full damage without minimum range like with ER-PPC, but it may kick the PPC's EMP-like side effects on the firing mech. there would be a risk to PPC explosion due to feedback like in Gauss Rifle (10 damage for self to where exploded weapon is placed).
.

....or that. Same would apply to is lrms.....you can hotload them, but risk, if hit in that section, an ammo explosion of the value of hotloaded lrms.

[Shifty McSwift]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

IMO, ISPPC minimum range should just be removed, as it makes no sense balancewise, to have it.

As for your ISXL proposal, it merits further discussion.

Yeah the PPC min range on basic IS PPCs at the moment seems strangely out of place, but there may be minimum ranges on the light PPC too and it might just work to further force their usage in specific roles. But I agree it could do without, but at the very least at a sacrifice to max range.

My thoughts on PPCs lean more toward giving them all varying rates of splash (which would mean a general reduction in their PP damage from where it is now), and bring down their natural range and velocity a little, but reducing their heat cost substantially to compensate.

I also think IS XL is one of the major clan/IS distinctions and should probably just be made 2 st to die with whatever minuses that entails. I know the LFE coming will make that gap less, but it doesn't make the IS XL any less horrible of a choice. It would be more interesting IMO to have LFE's functionality as something else entirely and just keep the functionality of XLs pretty similar.

[Composite Armour]

The min range on the IS PPC should just be removed outright. It makes it a really awkward weapon to use, especially on the shorter-range variant of the weapon.

[Kaeb Odellas]

I still like my Titanfall-style doomed state for IS XL side torso loss.

Instead of dying outright, it starts taking CT damage after 30 seconds, and keels over after 60.

[Curccu]

- We had PPC damage drop off within minimum range loong loong time ago when 4/6PPC stalker ruled the battlefield. It would be nice to have it back or like el bandito said just remove it, but then ERPPC would require some heavy tweaking to be viable.
+ We are getting snubnoses soon which kinda remove this issue.

- Shutting down for any number of seconds while in open (that sidetorso was lost mooost likely by direct fire) is death sentence anyway

-Why do you want to nerf LRMs which already are pretty much worst weapon in the game?

[Ch_R0me]

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 June 2017 - 05:00 AM, said:

I still like my Titanfall-style doomed state for IS XL side torso loss.

Instead of dying outright, it starts taking CT damage after 30 seconds, and keels over after 60.

That's a good idea too.

Curccu, on 07 June 2017 - 05:07 AM, said:

- We had PPC damage drop off within minimum range loong loong time ago when 4/6PPC stalker ruled the battlefield. It would be nice to have it back or like el bandito said just remove it, but then ERPPC would require some heavy tweaking to be viable.
+ We are getting snubnoses soon which kinda remove this issue.

If things will go as they are, then standard PPC will go literally into trash. :/

Curccu, on 07 June 2017 - 05:07 AM, said:

- Shutting down for any number of seconds while in open (that sidetorso was lost mooost likely by direct fire) is death sentence anyway

Lost leg is also a death sentence pretty much afaik.

Anyway - more thinking about XL issue would be required.

Curccu, on 07 June 2017 - 05:07 AM, said:

-Why do you want to nerf LRMs which already are pretty much worst weapon in the game?

Because that "worst weapon in the game" still practically reign supreme in vast open areas, especially in Polar Highlands (at least in my games)?

[cazidin]

IS XL should simply survive ST loss with similar penalties.

There is literally no reason to have kept the death on ST loss at this point.

[Metus regem]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2017 - 03:21 AM, said:

What is this drunken missile mode you speak of?

IMO, ISPPC minimum range should just be removed, as it makes no sense balancewise, to have it.

As for your ISXL proposal, it merits further discussion.

I've been advocating for a charge mechanic for the normal IS PPC, similar to the Gauss Rifle as they both had a minimum range of 3 in TT...


Speaking of Minimum ranges, PGI has been very inconsistent with how they have handled it...


Minimum range ignored:

AC/2
AC/5
UAC/5
cLB-2X
cLB-5X
cAC-2
cAC/5
cUAC/2
cUAC/5

Minimum range changed to charge mechanic:

Gauss
cGauss

Minimum range changed to 0 Damage

LRM
PPC


This leads me to wonder how they are going to go about the minimum ranges for the new weapons that are coming namely the following, as the IS UAC/s and LB's that are coming I can use the current models to extrapolate how they will likely work...

HGR
LGR
LPPC
HPPC

I would imagine that the HPPC and LPPC are going to get stuck with the 90m dead zone, but doing that is really going to hurt the LPPC's viability, how ever for the HPPC it lends it self well to the HPPC keeping the 15 PPFLD. As for the HGR and LGR, I can see a charge for the HGR, but that hurts the HGR as it really is a short range weapon for maximum effect, while the LGR would be punished heavily... it's already a bad tonnage to damage ratio at 12t for 8 damage, giving it a charge mechanic would just drive it from niche build to trash heap in short order.

[Mcgral18]

Phoolan Devi, on 07 June 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

If the isxl should, for whatever reason, get fixed, I think the easiest and best solution would be to implement that it takes 4 engine crits to kill an engine.....done!

Why should PPC min range be fixed? It's lore and btw er-PPC are the same slot and tomnage wise. If you don't wanna have min range, just take the er.

Lurms are just fine how they work now....at least for me. The only thing that bothers me is, that I have to take range nodes to reach those precious crit, rak and velocity nodes. Why should I enhance the 900m? Not lobbing them above 500m anyways (only in very rare occations it makes sense to lob lrms above 500m).



....or that. Same would apply to is lrms.....you can hotload them, but risk, if hit in that section, an ammo explosion of the value of hotloaded lrms.

Your "easiest" solution would be to create and develop an Engine Crit system?
How about sidesToDie=2, that sounds easier and already exists
Also give it smaller penalties than the cXL because it us 2 Crit slots larger on top of other inferior equipment pieces.

PPC min range isn't lore, actually
It will deal full damage below 90M. It just has to-hit penalties.
Reduced damage was potent, but PPCs are much weaker than they once were.

[Curccu]

ManganMan, on 07 June 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

Because that "worst weapon in the game" still practically reign supreme in vast open areas, especially in Polar Highlands (at least in my games)?

Polar is the only map in the game with these vast open areas, BUT even that map has a lot of ridges to hide/poke behind and LRMS are NOT issue, unless you get narc in your face. So basically this issue is that you don't have enough situational awareness / map knowledge.

[Requiemking]

cazidin, on 07 June 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

IS XL should simply survive ST loss with similar penalties.

There is literally no reason to have kept the death on ST loss at this point.

Except that it needs that tradeoff? To be honest, I would actually up the penalties for ST loss with Clan XL even further. Legged speed plus complete negation of all engine heatsinks would be a fair trade in my opinion. As for LFE, either no penalty on ST loss, or current CXL penalties would suffice.

[cazidin]

Requiemking, on 07 June 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Except that it needs that tradeoff? To be honest, I would actually up the penalties for ST loss with Clan XL even further. Legged speed plus complete negation of all engine heatsinks would be a fair trade in my opinion. As for LFE, either no penalty on ST loss, or current CXL penalties would suffice.

...Does It, though? You're already paying 5-8M c-bills to replace your standard with an XL, and you'd be KEEPING the penalties if one side is lost which means less heat capacity, dissipation, speed AND agility.

LFE and XL will basically obsolete Standard engines for 95% of builds. That 5% may also like standard heat sinks.

[Metus regem]

cazidin, on 07 June 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

...Does It, though? You're already paying 5-8M c-bills to replace your standard with an XL, and you'd be KEEPING the penalties if one side is lost which means less heat capacity, dissipation, speed AND agility.

LFE and XL will basically obsolete Standard engines for 95% of builds. That 5% may also like standard heat sinks.

There are two weapon systems coming that will require standard engines, the HGR and LB-20X for the IS. I can already tell you that the LB-20X is going to be a trash bin special weapon, as it is the same weight as the AC/20 but takes up that all important 11th crit, combined with the spread on it, there will be no reason to use the LB-20X unless PGI does something drastic, like reducing the crit requirement or making it so powerful that it is worth taking a standard engine.... how ever it will be in direct competition with the HGR... and to be blunt I would rather take 25 PPFLD (at 270m or less, 10 damage at 600m... Meaning 0 damage at 1200m!) over 20 scattered across my target if I have to take a standard engine mech.

[Shifty McSwift]

Metus regem, on 07 June 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

There are two weapon systems coming that will require standard engines, the HGR and LB-20X for the IS. I can already tell you that the LB-20X is going to be a trash bin special weapon, as it is the same weight as the AC/20 but takes up that all important 11th crit, combined with the spread on it, there will be no reason to use the LB-20X unless PGI does something drastic, like reducing the crit requirement or making it so powerful that it is worth taking a standard engine.... how ever it will be in direct competition with the HGR... and to be blunt I would rather take 25 PPFLD (at 270m or less, 10 damage at 600m... Meaning 0 damage at 1200m!) over 20 scattered across my target if I have to take a standard engine mech.

Have they released the stats for the civil war weapons? Or are you basing this on something else?

[cazidin]

Metus regem, on 07 June 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

There are two weapon systems coming that will require standard engines, the HGR and LB-20X for the IS. I can already tell you that the LB-20X is going to be a trash bin special weapon, as it is the same weight as the AC/20 but takes up that all important 11th crit, combined with the spread on it, there will be no reason to use the LB-20X unless PGI does something drastic, like reducing the crit requirement or making it so powerful that it is worth taking a standard engine.... how ever it will be in direct competition with the HGR... and to be blunt I would rather take 25 PPFLD (at 270m or less, 10 damage at 600m... Meaning 0 damage at 1200m!) over 20 scattered across my target if I have to take a standard engine mech.

OK, and assuming those stats are correct, few will still be able to field HGR WITH standard engines AND move at a decent speed. I stand by my original statement that standard will be MOSTLY, not entirely, obsoleted by LFE and IS XL should survive ST loss.

[MustrumRidcully]

I would favor an approach where STD Engines would grant something like 20 % to all torso structure, IS XL Engines +15 %, and IS Light Fusion Engines could grant +5 %. Maybe adjust the exact percentage based on tonnage, to encourage even some light mechs to use STD Engines.

Basically, an equipment based structure Quirk.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 June 2017 - 12:15 PM.

[cazidin]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 June 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

I would favor an approach where STD Engines would grant something like 20 % to all torso structure, IS XL Engines +15 %, and IS Light Fusion Engines could grant +5 %. Maybe adjust the exact percentage based on tonnage, to encourage even some light mechs to use STD Engines.

Basically, an equipment based structure Quirk.

Even with engine de-sync I think that the most logical change would be quirks for agility such as acceleration and deceleration.

You're choosing a standard to survive torso loss and thus enhance durability anyway.