255 replies to this topic

[visionGT4]

ill put up a Madcat II basic pack (or next upgrade if j00 already have basic on order) to the first person that can demonstrate via man logic (maths & science) a comp viable IS deck that will have equal or greater Firepower, Survivability & Mobility ton for ton as a clan deck thanks to the introduction of civil war 'tech'. No synthetic deck limit

Bonus kudos if you can use the term "6%" in your man logic based argument


edit: wtf spelling

Edited by visionGT4, 04 July 2017 - 12:47 AM.

[Pjwned]

DrxAbstract, on 04 July 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

For that specific build to utilize an LFE it would go through quite a metamorphosis, but after going through the motions, I decided the result was interesting enough to investigate and report on incase you were sincerely curious:

We're going to make some assumptions to start, such as wanting to keep the Medium Lasers, Engine Rating and Armor(No skimming, at least).

To start, 2 ASRM6s would be dropped for 2 ASRM4s as well as relocating the 2 tons of AC20 ammo to the arm to make room for an LFE--This leaves you with 9.5 Tons available and 0 Open Slots. From here it's player discretion as to what to do next, but unless you only want to increase to an LFE360, add 2 Heat Sinks, change the Medium Lasers to Medium Pulses, or even a Large Pulse (6.5 of 9.5 or 9.5 of 9.5, respectively) the forgone conclusion is you're going to have to switch to Standard Structure, which leaves you with only 4.5 Tons, but gives you room to work with. 2 More Heat Sinks and 1 ton more ammo for both the AC20 and SRMs or 4 Heat Sinks would likely be the most common variations... Slight improvements to two areas the AS7-S struggles with: Heat Production and Ammo Longevity.

A minor, but definite, improvement to that particular design... And that's the 30 second iteration. If I spent an hour mulling over the possibilities I'm sure there's a few valid variations hiding in the Mech Lab.

If the result is needing to give up endo steel structure then it's no longer worth it at that point though, you would be giving up over half of the already rather low tonnage benefit you gain from switching to LFE just to make room to cram in more equipment when it already has pretty immense firepower with enough sustainability, meanwhile whenever you lose a side torso you take a drop in speed and a big drop in internal heatsinks.

So no, I wouldn't say that's a definite improvement, especially when it also means having less SRM firepower which is the crux of the build.

Edited by Pjwned, 04 July 2017 - 02:23 AM.

[Acehilator]

Pjwned, on 03 July 2017 - 11:28 PM, said:

Sorry, if you thought that was a wall of text I'll stick to more 1-liners for your feeble mind.



It was needed since you said something so stupid and it proved my point, so I guess it worked out.



Saying that doesn't mean it's accurate, because it isn't.



Still need space & tonnage to use those hardpoints and enough extra heatsinks for an already hot build, just to downgrade those SRMs that are less hot.



Unpopular doesn't mean bad, and again singling out LFEs for a buff is stupid, just like it would be for the other 2.



It applies to a much greater extent to IS weapons, and some of that doesn't apply to Clans at all.



PGI being slow at making changes doesn't change the proper solution.

Convergence is still an unbalanced mess since years ago, doesn't mean that dumb garbage like ghost heat or energy draw are the solution.



Amazing arguments, I think I'm done with your stupidity now.

Aaaand we are following up the hyperbole with a two nice ad hominem attacks... stay classy.

If you want to have a discussion in the future, try improving your reading comprehension, I am not going to rehash our whole conversation and bring up the points you failed to refute for a forth time.

As a closing note, by all means, continue being Don Quijote to PGIs windmills.

[Jay Leon Hart]

qS Sachiel, on 04 July 2017 - 12:05 AM, said:

>< it's an attempt at reverse engineering the cXL.
you get a lighter engine per unit output
you get to lose one side and still live..
it costs marginally less than isXL.

what's the problem here? you're getting something EXTRA lol.
this is akin to getting a free bed and then complaining they don't deliver it.

What's the problem with wanting something obviously not balanced to be balanced? Gee, I wonder...

I swear, the analogies on these boards get worse and worse. To correct your analogy, it would be like getting a free bed that is better than your current one, but still worse than the free bed all your friends and family got 5 years ago.

[DrxAbstract]

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 02:19 AM, said:

If the result is needing to give up endo steel structure then it's no longer worth it at that point though, you would be giving up over half of the already rather low tonnage benefit you gain from switching to LFE just to make room to cram in more equipment

That depends who you talk to--An extra 4.5 Tons to add to an already formidable build just to compensate its shortcomings is an opportunity I don't believe many people would realistically pass up.

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 02:19 AM, said:

when it already has pretty immense firepower with enough sustainability

Again, this is pretty subjective as I feel the AS7-S's baseline build has always lacked sustainability. If this was back in 2013 I'd say 3 tons of AC20 ammo and 400 SRMs was enough to last an entire game, but as the Mech's principle weaponry and how things are in-game today, I feel those numbers are inadequate and have built my own AS7-S to carry more ammo for both.

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 02:19 AM, said:

meanwhile whenever you lose a side torso you take a drop in speed and a big drop in internal heatsinks.

Does that actually happen on the PTR? Unless it's on the Live Servers, please avoid using doom-saying speculations to support your argument - It really is poor form.

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 02:19 AM, said:

So no, I wouldn't say that's a definite improvement, especially when it also means having less SRM firepower which is the crux of the build.

Oh please. You cant sit there and pretend losing 4 Missiles(8 Damage), that arguably would have hit anything beyond point-blank discharge to begin with, is the ultimate reason for declaring the LFE wouldn't improve the build as though reducing heat, better dissipation, top-speed boost, topped-off armor and/or more ammo does not, and could not, ever collectively outweigh those 4 missiles (You'd also have a tighter grouping on half your launchers)... That's just a mind-bogglingly confusing mentality to have concerning Mech Design... to me anyway.

[Pjwned]

Acehilator, on 04 July 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

Aaaand we are following up the hyperbole with a two nice ad hominem attacks... stay classy.

If you want to have a discussion in the future, try improving your reading comprehension, I am not going to rehash our whole conversation and bring up the points you failed to refute for a forth time.

As a closing note, by all means, continue being Don Quijote to PGIs windmills.

It's more like you just dodge everything that I say, mindlessly repeat everything you say with no substance, and then say stupid garbage like "WALL OF TEXT LOL" so why would I try any further to have a reasonable discussion with you, despite my efforts to stay reasonable? You ruined it by continuing to be a massive tool so that's the sort of response you get now because there's obviously no point to give you anything else.

If you want a better response then maybe try not crying wolf and make some arguments that aren't garbage, and try actually refuting my points instead of crying that I didn't refute yours when I actually did and you largely just ignored it.

Still didn't refute the validity of the hyperbole there by the way, you just got butthurt about it instead of realizing the point.

DrxAbstract, on 04 July 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

That depends who you talk to--An extra 4.5 Tons to add to an already formidable build just to compensate its shortcomings is an opportunity I don't believe many people would realistically pass up.

That's not impressive when you have to downgrade the centerpiece of the build, which is a boatload of SRMs, and give up endo steel for even less tonnage benefit than in most builds with a bunch of empty crit slots to show for it; I guess you could take light ferro fibrous armor to partially make up for it but that's still not worth it.

Also, if you bother to upgrade the engine from a 350 to a 360, which is part of your suggested LFE build and which barely makes any difference for a 100 ton mech anyways, you'll notice that it's extremely tonnage inefficient to do so.

Quote

Again, this is pretty subjective as I feel the AS7-S's baseline build has always lacked sustainability. If this was back in 2013 I'd say 3 tons of AC20 ammo and 400 SRMs was enough to last an entire game, but as the Mech's principle weaponry and how things are in-game today, I feel those numbers are inadequate and have built my own AS7-S to carry more ammo for both.

For one thing, there are ammo boosting skills in the firepower tree to help with that.

For another thing, there are a couple of energy hardpoints (in the CT, and more in each arm if you're inclined to use those for whatever reason) if you need to dish out some easy, reliable damage without using up ammo (or if you happen to run out of ammo) so that not all of your damage is ammo dependent.

For yet another thing, after you reach a certain level of firepower it starts to become a little less important to maintain ammo efficiency because it's so unlikely that adding more ammo is even going to help. To put it into perspective, you're talking about adding more ammo to a build that can potentially do 1,280 damage with its ammunition weapons alone, and that's without taking any of the ammo capacity nodes in the firepower tree either; at some point you just have to realize that if you want to maximize the potential for infinite damage then you shouldn't be taking ammunition weapons anyways.

Quote

Does that actually happen on the PTR? Unless it's on the Live Servers, please avoid using doom-saying speculations to support your argument - It really is poor form.

The report is that LFE engine damage penalties are the same as cXL engine damage penalties, which was a topic that was brought up in the thread and prompted somebody to say that LFE engine damage penalty should be reduced/removed which I responded to at length, so yeah actually it does apparently happen on the PTR if you bothered to read the last couple pages or so of the thread.

Quote

Oh please. You cant sit there and pretend losing 4 Missiles(8 Damage), that arguably would have hit anything beyond point-blank discharge to begin with, is the ultimate reason for declaring the LFE wouldn't improve the build as though reducing heat, better dissipation, top-speed boost, topped-off armor and/or more ammo does not, and could not, ever collectively outweigh those 4 missiles (You'd also have a tighter grouping on half your launchers)... That's just a mind-bogglingly confusing mentality to have concerning Mech Design... to me anyway.

If that was the only issue then I probably wouldn't dispute it, but it isn't.

Edited by Pjwned, 04 July 2017 - 01:32 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

That's not impressive when you have to downgrade the centerpiece of the build, which is a boatload of SRMs, and give up endo steel for even less tonnage benefit than in most builds with a bunch of empty crit slots to show for it; I guess you could take light ferro fibrous armor to partially make up for it but that's still not worth it.

That is not the 'centerpiece' of the build, not by far, as numerous Mechs can bring 4xASRM6 to the field. It's the fact it can bring an AC20 + 4xASRM6 + Thick Armor, a combination of 3 otherwise unremarkable features uniquely combined into one package - That is its 'centerpiece', which is overall improved, whether you personally are happy with the alterations necessary to do so or not. It's 4.5 more tons than you had before that can be used to further improve the build--I'm sorry it's not 20 tons with 30 free crit spaces to utilize .

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

Also, if you bother to upgrade the engine from a 350 to a 360, which is part of your suggested LFE build and which barely makes any difference for a 100 ton mech anyways, you'll notice that it's extremely tonnage inefficient to do so.

That was not part of "my suggested LFE build" because I did not make a "suggested LFE build". What I did in fact do was present choices... options. Saying I suggested it is saying I approve of it in some fashion when I have no opinion on it to begin with--It was a presentation of available choices.

But on that note, using a 350STD rather than a 325 is pretty tonnage inefficient for an Assault these days as well--It's all preference.

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

For one thing, there are ammo boosting skills in the firepower tree to help with that.

That's an awful lot of wasted nodes for a sub-1 ton boost in ammo... Totally worth it!

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

For another thing, there are a couple of energy hardpoints (in the CT, and more in each arm if you're inclined to use those for whatever reason) if you need to dish out some easy, reliable damage without using up ammo (or if you happen to run out of ammo) so that not all of your damage is ammo dependent.

For yet another thing, after you reach a certain level of firepower it starts to become a little less important to maintain ammo efficiency because it's so unlikely that adding more ammo is even going to help. To put it into perspective, you're talking about adding more ammo to a build that can potentially do 1,280 damage with its ammunition weapons alone, and that's without taking any of the ammo capacity nodes in the firepower tree either; at some point you just have to realize that if you want to maximize the potential for infinite damage then you shouldn't be taking ammunition weapons anyways.

You act like using those energy hardpoints doesn't require tonnage and heat that detracts from the performance of the primary weapon bundle, which it does. In point of fact I don't use the energy hardpoints on my AS7-S, nor does your hyperbole properly summarize or convey my concern with the baseline build's general lack of ammo longevity; 1,280 Maximum Potential Damage is pittance unless you plan on hiding for half the game and magically sidestepping your 62-68% Hit Percentage with AC20s and SRMs... Although your approach thus far has been "I don't like it because it doesn't surpass my effect-approval threshold." which is completely beside whether or not it actually makes a difference.

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

The report is that LFE engine damage penalties are the same as cXL engine damage penalties, which was a topic that was brought up in the thread and prompted somebody to say that LFE engine damage penalty should be reduced/removed which I responded to at length, so yeah actually it does apparently happen on the PTR if you bothered to read the last couple pages or so of the thread.

I have read them, thank you very much. The point was unless it's Live then it's not my concern.

Pjwned, on 04 July 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

If that was the only issue then I probably wouldn't dispute it, but it isn't.

Well it's the only legitimate issue thus far...

LFE Side torso loss penalties on PTR is likely from PGI haphazardly copy-pasting Clan XL, exercising their usual lack of foresight and general incompetence... But who knows.

[MustrumRidcully]

I am fairly certain the LFE penalties are fully intentional. In the table top game, LFE and Clan XL had the same problem to deal with when losing a side torso, so why would they start diferently with it?

[Acehilator]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 July 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

I am fairly certain the LFE penalties are fully intentional. In the table top game, LFE and Clan XL had the same problem to deal with when losing a side torso, so why would they start diferently with it?

Because this game would benefit from it? LFE without penalty would be on almost the same performance/power level as ClanXL. People need to stop clinging to the TT values... of course they should always be the starting point, but shifting them for the purpose of game design/balance should always be happening. The game would be in better shape if they would do it more often (another missed opportunity: HGausss / LB-20/X @10slots). And before the outcries of " I WANT MAH BATTLETECH, NOT GENERIC ROBOTS" ... there is quite a wide spectrum of possibilities between being slaved to the TT values and this game not being recognisable as a BT game anymore.

[SMDMadCow]

So it's balance that both engine types put 2 engine crits into the ST but only 1 suffers drawbacks for losing a ST? That doesn't seem very balanced to me.

[Jay Leon Hart]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 July 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

I am fairly certain the LFE penalties are fully intentional. In the table top game, LFE and Clan XL had the same problem to deal with when losing a side torso, so why would they start diferently with it?

Why would you balance the new, inferior tech to be penalised less than the old, superior tech? Was that rhetorical?

SMDMadCow, on 05 July 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

So it's balance that both engine types put 2 engine crits into the ST but only 1 suffers drawbacks for losing a ST? That doesn't seem very balanced to me.

So it's balanced that one saves you twice as much weight, despite taking up the same amount of space and having the same penalty? That doesn't seem very balanced to me.

[Gas Guzzler]

Snowbluff, on 29 June 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

Yes. I don't think the IS needs new tech to compete, but a lot of the new stuff is filler tech.

They also get RACs, which are a unique weapon.

Clans literally get ******** lasers and missiles that are "meh," which is better than most clan missiles, but still...

ATMs are pretty good. Probably 2nd best missile system in the game behind IS SRMs? In alot of cases they are more useful so that might even be a conservative estimate.

RACs seem pretty ******.

IS UACs are cool, but Clans already have UACs so now things are finally more even in that regard.

HGR is not really going to be a game changer given its bulkiness, though getting hit with a dual HGR dual SN PPC alpha was very painful.

The PPC family I'm not really convinced on. HPPC as a whole is kind of inefficient, but it does give mechs like the Dragon Slayer to be able to hit roughly as hard as a Night Gyr, though not nearly as cool running (hurray, an assault that isn't as deadly as a heavy, but still, minor victory). I was messing with some hexa-light PPC builds, and couldn't get a good reading on it because my internet was acting up, but maybe there is a chance for some good energy DPS there?

MRMs are pretty ******

Heavy lasers I agree are kind of pointless save for on a few hardpoint starved mechs, but even still... big meh.

Machine guns are whatever to me. I tried running a VPR with 5 HSLs and 4 HMGs, and they seemed okay, didn't do extensive testing there.

Basically, yeah the IS did get more new toys, but a lot of it was things the Clans already had. I don't think IS is going to come out of this super OP but we will see.

[SMDMadCow]

Jay Leon Hart, on 05 July 2017 - 08:35 AM, said:

So it's balanced that one saves you twice as much weight, despite taking up the same amount of space and having the same penalty? That doesn't seem very balanced to me.

Maybe it's because you're comparing Clan tech to IS tech? Within it's tech base the LFE is perfectly balanced as the middle ground between the standard and xl engine.

[Gas Guzzler]

SMDMadCow, on 05 July 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

So it's balance that both engine types put 2 engine crits into the ST but only 1 suffers drawbacks for losing a ST? That doesn't seem very balanced to me.

Only looking at slots doesn't include the tonnage disparity which is significant.

However, the points about being balanced within its on tech base do make sense, as quirks seem to do a decent job of bumping up IS durability/agility in many cases. At the very least, the LFE is a nice upgrade for certain mechs that were forced to use a standard because they wanted 10 slots of weapons in an ST (AC20, 2 UAC5). My MAD-3R is super stoked, gets a nice speed upgrade and an extra DHS.

[Jay Leon Hart]

SMDMadCow, on 05 July 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Maybe it's because you're comparing Clan tech to IS tech? Within it's tech base the LFE is perfectly balanced as the middle ground between the standard and xl engine.

Which would be fine, if Clan and IS never fought each other. Alas, they do, so it needs balancing as a whole.

[DrxAbstract]

SMDMadCow, on 05 July 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Maybe it's because you're comparing Clan tech to IS tech? Within it's tech base the LFE is perfectly balanced as the middle ground between the standard and xl engine.

Define 'perfectly balanced'. And keep in mind that Tech must be balanced between the IS and Clans, not just between the item's own technology trees, otherwise we'd have quite the disparity.

One prohibits extensive firepower+speed for the sake of survival while the other presents an otherwise glaring weakness for the sake of mounting still less firepower than Clan counterparts... The in-between option, LFEs, allow for mounting slightly less mediocre, but still mediocre firepower, with the caveat that you while you will still live through losing half your Mech's potential lifespan, you wont be able to use what limited boost in firepower said engine allowed you to mount in the first place and may as well be dead anyway.

The difference between a Clan XL and an LFE being the weight - A difference of 5 Tons starting at the 300 rating and increasing incrementally from there, hitting 7 Tons in the usual Engine sizes of Heavies/Assaults... That's a pretty big difference, especially with Clan tech being lighter/smaller, which is principally why the ST Loss penalty for Clan XLs is somewhat validated... But IS tech is heavy and bulky, so that tonnage saved from swapping an STD for an LFE doesn't go nearly as far, which suggests the ST Loss penalty for LFE should, at the very least, be less than it is for the Clan XL.

[Gas Guzzler]

DrxAbstract, on 05 July 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

ST Loss penalty for LFE should, at the very least, be less than it is for the Clan XL.

Yeah, this is definitely what I was expecting. How about half the penalty across the board?

[SMDMadCow]

Jay Leon Hart, on 05 July 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

Which would be fine, if Clan and IS never fought each other. Alas, they do, so it needs balancing as a whole.

Proven wrong by the current IS XLE.

[Jay Leon Hart]

SMDMadCow, on 05 July 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Proven wrong by the current IS XLE.

That PGI can't balance tech? Definitely.
That PGI shouldn't balance tech? Not at all.

[SMDMadCow]

DrxAbstract, on 05 July 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

Define 'perfectly balanced'. And keep in mind that Tech must be balanced between the IS and Clans, not just between the item's own technology trees, otherwise we'd have quite the disparity.

As I said, within it's tech base it is the middle ground between the other 2 engine types. We already have a disparity with the IS XLE, I'm sure there was as much crying about it back then too.