55 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 15 July 2017 - 10:01 PM, said:

depends what you set the engine crit slot health at. it doesnt have to be that way.

When it's too high, it's a moot point on Lights and Mediums.

When it's too low, the TTK on Heavies and Assaults would be impacted greatly. You will become "soft".

[Khobai]

Quote

When it's too high, it's a moot point on Lights and Mediums.

When it's too low, the TTK on Heavies and Assaults would be impacted greatly. You will become "soft".

If that really proves to be an issue you could just make the engine crit health variable and based on how much internal structure the mech has.

for example you could give each engine crit slot an amount of crit health equal to X% of the mech's CT internal structure.

So for example if X was 25%:
a locust with 12 CT structure would have 3 health per engine crit slot
while an atlas with 62 CT structure would get 15.5 health per engine crit slot

something like that.

Edited by Khobai, 15 July 2017 - 10:33 PM.

[Pjwned]

If you're going to argue for LFE buffs then at least be consistent with your bad ideas and argue for STD & XL buffs at the same time.

If you can't argue for buffs to all 3 engine types then it makes even less sense to just buff 1 of them.

Why are people bringing up this incredibly stupid idea lately anyways? The only reason I can see is that PGI has not indicated in any way that they're going to buff XL or STD engines--indeed they actually said the opposite a while ago--so people seem to think they can still get PGI to single out LFE for a buff despite that being an even worse idea.

[Juodas Varnas]

Just remove Clans ---> PROBLEM FIXED.

Add Quadrupeds instead.

[Tarl Cabot]

Regardless, there is nothing keeping PGI from using the Engine Crit rule as a guideline/flavor and increase the number of engine crits to take out a mech from 3 to 4 engine crits. PGI can continue doing their Flags for when a ST is destroyed with an appropriate heat/movement penalty, next the mech is down when the second ST is destroyed while utilizing c/isXL or LFE.

[Wiley Coyote]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

Just remove Clans ---> PROBLEM FIXED.

Add Quadrupeds instead.

[Juodas Varnas]

Wiley Coyote, on 15 July 2017 - 10:33 PM, said:

[Deathlike]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

Just remove Clans ---> PROBLEM FIXED.

Add Quadrupeds instead.

I'm pretty sure Quadrupeds will be added soon™ but will also come preemptively nerfed because reasons. That and IK will finally be implemented by the time MWO is optimized for the 10th gen Core i7.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 July 2017 - 10:42 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Khobai, on 15 July 2017 - 10:01 PM, said:

depends what you set the engine crit slot health at. it doesnt have to be that way.

it's still RNG.

The MWO crit system just doesn't work the way you want. And if engine health is high, the system doesn't do anything anyways.

Unless what you're REALLY asking is not destructible engines but instead a wholly different crit system.... And that's really what your asking for, isn't it?

That's really not gonna happen.

[Khobai]

Quote

it's still RNG.

so are ammo explosions.

im fine with engine crits being RNG. as long as engine crits arnt killing me more than 5%-10% of the time i dont see the issue.

[Mystere]

King Harkinian, on 15 July 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

I don't understand why people think every mech should be viable.

We're talking about a fundamentally imbalanced IP that explicitly states some of these mechs are **** based on lore reasons.

But eSpurts.

Edited by Mystere, 15 July 2017 - 11:13 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Tarl Cabot, on 15 July 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

Regardless, there is nothing keeping PGI from using the Engine Crit rule as a guideline/flavor and increase the number of engine crits to take out a mech from 3 to 4 engine crits. PGI can continue doing their Flags for when a ST is destroyed with an appropriate heat/movement penalty, next the mech is down when the second ST is destroyed while utilizing c/isXL or LFE.

Mechs don't die when they lose a certain number of engine crits.

This isn't tabletop.

Individual crits are never destroyed, only whole objects once their health is reduced to zero. The crit system in MWO is really wholly unlike tabletop, bearing only a superficial resemblance. Side torso loss causes death with an XL because they're coded that way, not because of the number of crits destroyed.

[Jay Leon Hart]

King Harkinian, on 15 July 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

I don't understand why people think every mech should be viable.

We're talking about a fundamentally imbalanced IP that explicitly states some of these mechs are **** based on lore reasons.

The same reason other FPS games balance classes and weapons - if everyone plays the same combination of things, everyone gets bored faster, game dies faster, devs lose all that income faster.

[Widowmaker1981]

Wintersdark, on 15 July 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

it's still RNG.

The MWO crit system just doesn't work the way you want. And if engine health is high, the system doesn't do anything anyways.

Unless what you're REALLY asking is not destructible engines but instead a wholly different crit system.... And that's really what your asking for, isn't it?

That's really not gonna happen.

While im not arguing for it, because RNG deaths are not a good thing, you could get around the crit system problem easily, by making engines 1 separate component per slot they use, each with its own health.

[jss78]

King Harkinian, on 15 July 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

I don't understand why people think every mech should be viable.

We're talking about a fundamentally imbalanced IP that explicitly states some of these mechs are **** based on lore reasons.

Well, from a practical point of view, we want there to be a large number of 'mechs people want to play. Because a diversity of 'mechs enriches the game. So if we can help a poorly performing 'mech out, we should.

Now I agree there are some 'mechs that are probably "beyond help". There are stuff like Vindicators and Panthers which are great in tabletop campaigns (and also HBS BT) because they're cost-effective fire-support 'mechs -- alternatives to heavies when you can't afford one. But here we don't have economy, so there's literally zero reason to bring them instead of a bigger 'mech.

IMO, it's OK that we have occasional hard-mode mechs, but you want to keep that number relatively low.

[Bud Crue]

King Harkinian, on 15 July 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

I don't understand why people think every mech should be viable.

We're talking about a fundamentally imbalanced IP that explicitly states some of these mechs are **** based on lore reasons.

Because in this game (not TT, not MW games of old, not the IP as presented in books, etc.) PGI asserts that all mechs are to have a role and an equivalent value. That's why.

Its their game, they get to make the rules. We get to be justifiably irritated when they fail to abide by their own rules while at the same time they lift a middle finger to the lore of TT, the MW games of old and the IP as presented in books, etc. If they decided to do one or the other (and actually ya know...did it) and then let us in on that "vision" then I don't think their would be nearly as much bitching. But as it is they chose a path of trying to make everything competitive and telling us that everything was to be competitive (an then they failed at doing so); so that is at least to me why I think every mech should be not just viable but competitive.

Also: e-sports!

[Khobai]

Quote

Mechs don't die when they lose a certain number of engine crits.

But they should thats the whole point.

#criticalhitsmatter

[Wattila]

Mmh, PGI appears to randomly follow, or disregard, TT critical hit rules. I guess they initially decided that XL ST loss == death, because the ST contains 3 engine criticals (and that's how it works in TT). However, there is no way to score individual engine crits, which isn't a bad thing as that system works better with the TT randomized hit locations anyway.

This was fine while it was IS vs IS only. Enter the clans, there are only 2 engine crits in a ST, so you need to completely destroy both side torsos due to the aforementioned lack of individual engine critical hits. So, instead of disregarding the TT engine destruction rules, PGI has spent years applying band-aids to try mitigate the fragility of the isXL engine in comparison to the clan version. It boggles the mind.

[J0anna]

How far down this slippery slope do you want to go? First it's normalize engines, then "weapons must be balanced", then "upgrades must be balanced"...How far before this game becomes NOTHING like battletech. It's bad enough that PGI refuses to bring lore into this game (you've had more than enough chance), change the tech to be equal and you even remove tech from 'Battletech". Some of us don't want "Walking World of Tanks".

This isn't WoT or CoD, it's supposed to be Battletech, and more exactly MechWarrior (did you even play that game)? Battlemechs aren't supposed to be 'equal', they are supposed to be 'equivalent', there is a difference. PGI (to their credit) is trying to keep them equivalent through quirks, and while not perfect, they have done a fairly good job. I bought the marauder the second it was announced not because I wanted to place clan equipment on it and make it a clan mech, I bought it because of "Decision at Thunder Rift". I happen to think this new tech will bring us much closer to equivalence than ever, and I can't wait to see that.

[QuantumButler]

TBH Quirks are more interesting at this point.