Jump to content

Should Is Omnis Be Able To Change Engine Types?


72 replies to this topic

#41 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,133 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:25 PM

Hmm, PGI was keen on keeping IS Omnimechs as it is, maybe they should introduce locked engines and or different upgrades, but different on variants. They weren't scared to add new variants, so adding variants with differences on locked equipment could be a thing.

Lets face it, Rakasha has locked 34 slots already, it would do some good if we can swap it, even if at such an indirect way.

Posted Image

I had to be creative and still account the weapons of the other variants. Like the RAC5, could still be put on the right arm, XLE + LRM10A + 1t Ammo + MPL on side torso, and the minimum 3 slots - ER Large Laser + ERML on the other arm.

Unless something is done, that fixed armor and structure slots alone would kill the Rakshasa.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 July 2017 - 09:40 PM.


#42 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:39 PM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 07 July 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

Hmm, PGI was keen on keeping IS Omnimechs as it is, maybe they should introduce locked engines and or different upgrades, but different on variants. They weren't scared to add new variants, so adding variants with differences on locked equipment could be a thing.

Lets face it, Rakasha has locked 34 slots already, it would do some good if we can swap it, even if at such an indirect way.

I had to be creative and still account the weapons of the other variants. Like the RAC5, could still be put on the right arm, XLE + LRM10A + 1t Ammo + MPL on side torso, and the minimum 3 slots - ER Large Laser + ERML on the other arm.

Unless something is done, that fixed armor and structure slots alone would kill the Rakshasa.

The Rakshasa doesn't have locked slots, because it's a Battlemech.

#43 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:41 PM

View PostKhobai, on 07 July 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

because theyre only 1 crit slot. you save an absurd number of crit slots. see above.

View PostKhobai, on 07 July 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

SHS would be ridiculously good if the internal heatsinks counted as 2.0 true dubs.

They might even be so good theyd have to be nerfed.


If all internal heatsinks were true dubs then external SHS could be straight up compared to DHS

10 SHS = 10 tons and 10 crits for 12 dissipation and 12 cap

8 IS-DHS = 8 tons and 24 crits for 12 dissipation and 12 cap

8 C-DHS = 8 tons and 16 crits for 12 dissipation and 12 cap

look how many crit slots youd save taking the SHS over the DHS. you spend 2 extra tons to save 14 crit slots!!!

that is absurd tonnage to critslot conversion. SHS would be super good if not outright broken then.

but your forgetting one thing,
Internal SHSs only give +1.2Cap, they dont give Internal DHSs +1.5Cap,

with that taken into consideration you would have:
10 SHS = 10 tons and 10 crits for 12(+20) dissipation and 12(+12) cap
8 IS-DHS = 8 tons and 24 crits for 12(+20) dissipation and 12(+15) cap
8 C-DHS = 8 tons and 16 crits for 12(+20) dissipation and 12(+15) cap
(the Numbers added on are when Internal heat Sinks are Counted)

you would have to make all internal heat Sinks identical for SHSs to even Seem Broken,
at that the more Heat Sinks you are planing to add makes SHSs less and less Broken,

#44 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,133 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:41 PM

View PostFupDup, on 07 July 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

The Rakshasa doesn't have locked slots, because it's a Battlemech.


Oh, my bad.

#45 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:43 PM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 07 July 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

Oh, my bad.

sorry (The6thMessenger) tried to warn you,
my second post in this Topic talks about it as well, Posted Image

#46 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,133 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:47 PM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 07 July 2017 - 09:43 PM, said:

sorry (The6thMessenger) tried to warn you,
my second post in this Topic talks about it as well, Posted Image


Yeah well, my net went down for a while and i didn't get to read that part, nor the rest of the posts till i posed my Rakshasa custom version. Well i have MRMs to look forward with Rakshasa.

Still, think about it. It's pretty ugly once we consider that locked IS Endo + Ferro.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 July 2017 - 09:48 PM.


#47 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:52 PM

Quote

Internal SHSs only give +1.2Cap, they dont give Internal DHSs +1.5Cap,


I know. I only gave them 1.2 / 1.2 when I did my calculations. But the internal heatsinks I counted as 2.0 true dubs.

Quote

you would have to make all internal heat Sinks identical for SHSs to even Seem Broken,


exactly. making all internal heat sinks into identical 2.0 true dubs was my suggestion for fixing SHS.

Quote

at that the more Heat Sinks you are planing to add makes SHSs less and less Broken,


the opposite actually. the more heatsinks you plan on taking the more broken SHS get. because you save way more crit space. crit space is more important than tonnage for most mechs except for some mediums and most lights.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 09:57 PM.


#48 R Valentine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 10:55 PM

Just swapping engine types would be OK as long as you can't modify the rating. IS XL engines would destroy certain omnis, especially assaults. It's just too much of a handicap.

#49 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 10:57 PM

I think even though we're seemingly trying to move away from quirks. I think they can quirk anything to work more or less. Even standard heatsinks. They could give them rate of heat loss and heat gen quirks. Anything with bad hitboxes for IS XLs can just get extra armor and structure specifically on the side torsos.

#50 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,476 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 08 July 2017 - 08:36 AM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 07 July 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

well because the Rakshasa isnt an OmniMech, so theirs that,
its based off the Mad Cat OmniMech, it isnt an OmniMech,

for instance lets look at the Sunder 90Ton IS OmniMech,
it stats out with a 360XL Engine Giving it 35.5Free Tons(Assuming Max Armor)
you move down to a LFE360, you lose 8.5Tons(27Free Tons), but you gain Extra Survivability,
would this Change(XL to LFE or XL to STD) be fore everyone, No, but it could offer some Flexibility to OmniMechs,
in this case this Change would benefit IS OmniMechs Mostly, but Clan still has the Choice,


I included the Rakshasa because the OP did; I was poor when those were coming out, and never picked up the 'mech readouts. Thus, my knowledge of specific canon Battlemech models is far from encyclopedic. Regardless, the assertion stands on its own merit despite the example. If we allow "omnihardpoints" that can match any weapon, Omnimechs become superior to any similar Battlemech, which is bad for MWO. Not only are their loadouts superior, but adoption of Omnimechs gives players more flexibility than Battlemech pilots, simply because their one chassis can do anything and the Battlemech is limited to its designed hardpoints.

It bears mentioning, however, that your counter-example did not deal with this issue in the slightest. You've conflated one topic with the other - hopefully through carelessness - but this is a very bad misstep when making an argument. Similarly, your repeated and increasingly strident requests for contrary evidence far in advance of anything you've provided are also unacceptable tactics. You are not permitted to assume you're correct until someone else proves you wrong, nor to demand much stronger proof for objections than you yourself provided for the claim. This isn't my first rodeo - if I let you do this, you'll simply make some assertion that my example is wrong or inconclusive, then require even stronger proof that you're wrong in order to accept the example. In other words, you'll continue to move the goal posts and beg the question until an unattainable level of "proof" is required - you may not have thought it through, but it's what you've already been doing. It's... not going to happen.

In any case, these changes are expected to be beneficial, or neither you nor the Op would be asking for them. If, as the OP suggests, these changes should be applied to IS omnimechs, there is no possible case where this does not worsen balance, because Is Omnis would have an ability that Clan Omnis lack - and both Battlemechs and Omnimechs share the same tech bases for their factions.

Now, if you are, as you now seem to suggest, talking about allowing engine type changes for either tech base, I have no opinion other than to point out that engine type balancing should probably be done first - this is the first time you've mentioned that in our exchange, however, even though you've endorsed "what is Proposed in the Topic OP," - and I've been very clear that this is my point of contention.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 July 2017 - 08:46 AM.


#51 TheMadTypist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 548 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 08:55 AM

Omni's shouldn't be able to change locked equipment. Even when that equipment is crap. That's part of being an Omni. You can pick your hardpoints or your equipment but not both. We should stay true to that for the IS.

So no, there should be IS omni's with locked standard engines. or locked XL engines. The core behavior of the chassis isn't one you should be able to modify with an Omni, at any point. If they really need that much help, we can give them set quirks like the MDD prime or the Gargoyle. It's the best way to ensure that omni's in the same weight bracket remain distinct.

EDIT: and one additional point- if you take away a weakness of Omnitech, you're denying the strengths of the standard battlemech, and risk invalidating older designs already in game. That might be true to fluff, but it would be bad for diversity within the game. More content means little if it reduces the diversity of what actually gets used.

Edited by TheMadTypist, 08 July 2017 - 09:06 AM.


#52 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,476 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 08 July 2017 - 08:57 AM

View PostKhobai, on 07 July 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

except thats been proven not to work. its not balanced. ISXL cannot be significantly worse than CXL if they expect IS and clan mechs to be balanced 1:1

so no it doesnt make sense. at all. ever.

But it did work;balance was pretty sorta-kinda decent before the Clan Battlemechs and subsequent generation of omnis. It wasn't perfect, but balancing the tech bases on a holistic basis did give PGI favorable results in the past - and it got them there from a place of much worse balance. So it makes sense for PGI to think in terms of holistic balancing now.

They're wrong: there's too much variation in engine tonnages, and too much balance disruption when new tech/'mechs/changes come out. But people can be wrong and still be following a course of action that makes a certain sense.

#53 STEF_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nocturnal
  • The Nocturnal
  • 5,443 posts
  • Locationmy cockpit

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:01 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 07 July 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

nopenopenope


My opinion is:

NO.

#54 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:04 AM

I also vote no. It would defeat the point.

#55 Baulven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 984 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:13 AM

I need to point out that even bringing up omnimech construction in an online game that does nothing to address why the things exist is pointless. Omnimechs are designed to make battlefield swaps fast. Since MWO does not at any point make you wait time or have protracted campaigns this distinction doesn't exist. If battlemechs and omnimechs had a timer for refit then this would make sense (and omnimechs would have a much shorter timer for things like weapon slots.)

Since bonuses from omnimech construction don't exist (except PGIs made up omnipod that let you swap hard points, which shouldn't even be a thing) there is no reason to keep this flimsy house of cards. Hell most people I know would willing lock into pods to change to a battlemech. Customization is king following mobility baseline and hard point configuration.

#56 LT. HARDCASE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 2,706 posts
  • LocationDark Space

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:49 AM

IS Omnis should never be added to MWO. They're so gimped PGI would have to break long established rules, just for them to be decent.

#57 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:55 AM

View PostVoid Angel, on 08 July 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

But it did work;balance was pretty sorta-kinda decent before the Clan Battlemechs and subsequent generation of omnis. It wasn't perfect, but balancing the tech bases on a holistic basis did give PGI favorable results in the past - and it got them there from a place of much worse balance. So it makes sense for PGI to think in terms of holistic balancing now.


No, it didn't work.

It's really time for everyone to give up the ghost on this one. The notion that you are going to 'balance' a game where tonnage varies by up to 500% to any kind of 'competitive' standard goes beyond silly and vaults straight into plum ********.

See... the advantage of light mechs is that they can do hit-and-run attacks over tens of kilometers of battlespace. When you lock them into an arena deathmatch.... yeah... that ploy goes right out the window. Medium mechs are nice for their cost-effectiveness and their ability to bring both speed and specialized weapons to the field. That kinda-sorta works... except when it's single-elimination deathmatch... "cost-effectiveness" flies out the window as combat performance is what wins the day.

Weapon systems designed to be useful for dealing with infantry and other non-present threats in this game also make the idea it will be 'balanced' in any kind of 'competitive' sense pure nonsense. Factor in that the source material was designed not as a competitive multiplayer game and, instead, as a tactics-rpg...

You can have a Solaris-style competitive play... but you're going to see heavy favoritism for certain weapon systems because they are just better or because the fixed conditions of the combat make other weapon systems less relevant.

Quote

They're wrong: there's too much variation in engine tonnages, and too much balance disruption when new tech/'mechs/changes come out. But people can be wrong and still be following a course of action that makes a certain sense.


I would argue it follows a certain rationale.

The goal is to make an arena shooter that is going to become an e-sport. Because we're Korean, or something. Russ wants a sort of Virtual Solaris people will pay ticket/subscription fees to watch.

If the pattern of development and behavior is any indication.

The primary drive pushing the engine change is because they can't figure out how to get spectating and replays to work. Kind of need that for an e-sport (it's not a bad feature in general... but...).

#58 VonBruinwald

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undisputed
  • The Undisputed
  • 3,460 posts
  • LocationRandis IV

Posted 08 July 2017 - 11:00 AM

I vote to allow all omnimechs to change engine type.

Engine type:
Std <-> Lfe <-> XL

NOT engine rating:
250 <-> 255 <-> 260

Engine sinks remain locked and the only thing you're juggling is tonnage/torso-slots/survivability. It treats clan and IS the same and leaves battlemech's their edge in engine-ratings.

#59 LT. HARDCASE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 2,706 posts
  • LocationDark Space

Posted 08 July 2017 - 11:52 AM

View PostVonBruinwald, on 08 July 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

I vote to allow all omnimechs to change engine type.

Engine type:
Std <-> Lfe <-> XL

NOT engine rating:
250 <-> 255 <-> 260

Engine sinks remain locked and the only thing you're juggling is tonnage/torso-slots/survivability. It treats clan and IS the same and leaves battlemech's their edge in engine-ratings.

Why would a Clan pilot ever switch from their almighty, best of both worlds XL?

This would only benefit the Kingfisher.

#60 Kanil

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 12:07 PM

View PostLT. HARDCASE, on 08 July 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

Why would a Clan pilot ever switch from their almighty, best of both worlds XL?

This would only benefit the Kingfisher.

That's the elegance of it. You make IS omnis not suck, while making Clan omnis not better than they already are.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users