258 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 13 September 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

The HLL's heat didn't get increased, and if anything the heatsink changes will make it easier to manage the weapon's existing heat.

Yeah, but the cLPL also reaps the same benefits which feels like it may be the winner of the large lasers after this round of nerfs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 September 2018 - 02:21 PM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2018 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yeah, but the cLPL also reaps the same benefits which feels like it may be the winner of the large lasers after this round of nerfs.

>Wubhawk Intensifies<

[Tarl Cabot]

waterfowl, on 13 September 2018 - 01:19 PM, said:

WTF did I just read?

"We're happy that players really liked the lowered heat cap"

"So we're not going to lower it, increase dissipation, and make laser vomit even worse"

I'm done with this game.

It is the overall heat cap, though for some it did not go far enough. But also understand their decisions needed to be based on zero skill tree usage while in an environment with ghost heat and stock mechs. That does not mean PGI could revisit it after it has been released, especially

Previously
30 base heat bar
2.0*10 for engine DHS = 50
1.5*x for external DHS

30+20 + 1.5*10 = 65

New
45 base heat bar
0.5*10 engine DHS = 5
0.5*10 external DHS = 5

45+5+5 = 55

****
PGI could go with 40 base heat bar, moving it to 50 instead of 55. And/or reduce the percentage from 0.5 to 0.25, changing external DHS from 5 to 2.5

Gomen, who the frak am I kidding. This would still benefit Clans more so than IS, Clans can pack more DHS (2slots vs 3slots) and in more places (especially Clan Battlemechs) while also benefiting from components taking less slots and generally weighing less, and this is in an environment where the isXL is destroyed with the loss of either side torso or ct, while the cXL ( and LFE w/less weight savings) takes either the CT or both side torsos. And Clans also benefit from Endo/Ferro taking up 50% less slots than their respective IS components.

Chris, has there been any recent consideration on leveling the playing field for the engines?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 13 September 2018 - 03:25 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Bud Crue, on 12 September 2018 - 07:50 AM, said:

Agreed.

My point is merely that by making every mech “equal” by reducing or eliminating quirks in the manner that Chris has both done and wishes to continue, will make the meta perhaps less pronounced, but also more obvious. It will make the lesser mechs even more of a pointlessness other than one of nostalgia or some sort of ‘leet “I play this POS for the challenge” type of experience. There is no reason to take mechs 1-27 to run the meta of the day when mech 28 has the same damn load out potential with the highest hard points and decent hit boxes compared to the rest. We literally have that many mechs running laser vomit for example (more probably) yet the best variants are clear. Take away quirks and the best become even more obvious. Continue to provide zero incentive to play different weapons and different play styles and those 27 mechs will just sit. That is where I see us at now, and if we continue down this road, its going to get worse.

Economically it also seems pretty stupid in a game with hundreds of variants -again of which many are practically the same and Chris apparently wants to make more so- that they try and sell for $, to make them all the same when there are clear examples that are better than the rest. Quirks give those lesser options a reason to be played, and perhaps even purchased, with builds that may be niche and/or less than the meta perhaps, but played nonetheless.

If there is a way to provide that incentive and that distinctiveness other than quirks then I would be open to it, but right now I don’t see it.

At no point are we advocating the reduction / removal of quirks that are needed for under performers, or those with inherited drawbacks due to weapon placement, hardpoint counts, or certain geometry characteristics. Given the wide amount of variation between various 'Mechs size, shape, hardpoints, and access to equipment, quirks will always be a vital tool that we will utilize to bring more diversity / balance to the field. But there is a big difference between using quirks to make up for bad geometry, bad hardpoint placement, or making up for lack of hardpoint variety, and those that are seen as a "barrier to entry" to ever properly consider a 'Mech as being viable, or pushing builds into territories where your in-match performance is negatively affected because there is only ever one way to "properly" outfit a 'Mech around it's assigned quirks.

To quote what we said earlier on the matter in the PTS1.1 announcement:

Quote

We would also like to stress that the core Quirk system's main functions are to provide corrective quirks for geometry that may see inherit disadvantages in-game (the Hunchback's hunch being a prime example) and to provide light flavor quirks to 'Mechs with unique playstyles in-game. Since the introduction of the Skill Tree’s native defensive quirks, which were not reduced with its introduction, they have become a de-facto barrier to entry for many Inner Sphere 'Mechs to be considered viable against Clan alternatives.

While we do not seek to remove them as a form of Corrective or Flavor Quirk, their status as a barrier to entry for viability with Inner Sphere 'Mechs is something that directly goes against our primary intention of the Quirk system. This is why changes that push this dial towards better baseline balance between the two factions, moving away from this barrier to entry for viability, is something that we wish to test with this incoming PTS.

To elaborate on this, we are not advocating the reduction / removal of quirks from 'Mechs that need them, but taking a look at certain performers that received defensive enhancements prior to or shortly after the release of the skill tree / civil war tech, that have had their current quirk levels brought under scrutiny due to their current performance through the PTS testing of the various changes over time that has seen baseline clan performance get into closer alignment with the IS side.

Given the many variables between all the 'Mechs, we fully recognize the need for quirks in order to provide corrective and flavor elements to various 'Mechs out there, but we will not be utilizing the system in a way that create's puzzles where there is only ever one right way to properly customize a 'Mech and remain effective. (as this goes against the core design of providing players with a 'mechlab to give them that freedom to customize in the first place,) nor use it as a barrier to entry in regards to faction viability. As this only perpetuates the arms race that already exists in the game.

Additionally, and this is just my own personal opinion, I do not like being in a position where only the IS side has a wide reaching access to "flavor" quirks that pushes a greater diversity of what different 'Mechs are tuned to do, but on the clan side, we end up having to be a bit more reserved on quirk assignments due to scaling concerns with the a-symetrical equipment balance between the factions. Since the clans typically have better core equipment almost across the board. While the a-symetrical balance of the core clan equipment will always be something that we have to keep an eye on, with an ever expanding roster of 'Mechs on the clan side, having little to no quirks, even flavor quirks, on the clan side as a balance point is eventually going to result in a "sameness" to their builds if higher quirk levels are something that only the IS have access to by design over balance concerns.

So no, we are not looking to remove quirks whole sale from the game, but as we have been saying for a bit now, baseline balance between the factions has been a long term goal that we have worked towards. As we keep pushing in that direction, there will be outliers that have simply outgrown the need to have as aggressive of quirk assignments as they currently have and we will reduce / remove those as needed, but as we get there, its my hope we can get to a point where we can start pushing a bit more of the flavor based stuff more into the Clan camp to give a bit more distinction between the 'Mechs as we continue to expand the roster on both sides.

[FupDup]

Speaking of baseline tech issues, couldn't the IS have had better dissipation and/or capacity on their DHS to help alleviate that issue? That doesn't even have to mean increasing the IS values from their currently proposed October values (if you're afraid of pushing the power level too high), it would also be fine to reduce Clans from 0.22 dissipation to 0.2 per DHS and something like 0.25 capacity from the proposed 0.5.

[Chris Lowrey]

Tarl Cabot, on 13 September 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

Chris, has there been any recent consideration on leveling the playing field for the engines?

This is a particular point that I am always pushing on my end when I can. (Especially since I said I was looking into it at one point in a QA more then a year ago.)

Like Paul has said elsewhere, it often comes down to bandwidth. And engines are just unfortunately a very tight knot to try and unfurl on our end for improvements. Especially when there are many other avenues we can target for improvements and get them implemented in a more timely manner.

By no means does this mean that it's fallen off my radar. But lots of things need to happen in order to have it put up for consideration, most of which is completely outside of my control. As with anything in development, we can say the exact same thing for any number of other improvements that are currently in production now or on deck for development. So while its not on the table for right now, this does not mean we won't consider it in the future.

[Chris Lowrey]

FupDup, on 13 September 2018 - 03:55 PM, said:

Speaking of baseline tech issues, couldn't the IS have had better dissipation and/or capacity on their DHS to help alleviate that issue? That doesn't even have to mean increasing the IS values from their currently proposed October values (if you're afraid of pushing the power level too high), it would also be fine to reduce Clans from 0.22 dissipation to 0.2 per DHS and something like 0.25 capacity from the proposed 0.5.

We have thought about this, but we keep coming back to a few particular issues. One of them being lighter Clan 'Mechs. While Clan DHS have the 33% crit advantages which compounds on heavier chassis, 'Mechs that are more limited by tonnage restrictions don't have the same level of scalability issues that you see on the higher end of the weight spectrum. So creating an asymmetry with the heat sinks in that regard might bring heavier chassis' into alignment, but then unfairly punish those chassis' on the lighter side of the weight spectrum, or heavier 'Mechs that rely on non-laser weapons which don't see the same scaling issues that you often find with heatsink boating with lasers.

As we said in the OP, Heat is a global system, and so there for has to be considered across the global spectrum of not just lasers, but all weapons. To this end, I guess I should ask my own question to this to see the response. Take Lasers 100% off the table, and is heatsink boating on the clan side still an issue for anything 70 tons and under? I often see heatsinks much like ammo, sure you can boat tremendous amounts of it, but at some point if you boat enough ammo, it should cut into your upfront damage output capabilities. Outside it's scalability with lasers, is it really as big of an issue with any other weapon type for a MAJORITY of the weight classes in the Clan roster? Be it Clan PPCs, Clan Missiles, or Clan Ballistics. And if it is, is it so out of alignment that it should be hit at the expense of all the other weapons that it is not causing issues with?

Because again, due to the heat system's need to feed into all the other weapon systems, this is not something where we would be looking to hit in order to target any individual type of weapon or playstyle, as that is a quick way to effectively nerf everything for the sake of hitting a system where you should only have been hitting the weapons to begin with. As nerfing everything just to get to a single weapon or playstyle more often then not just results in landing you right back where you started, only now with everything feeling worse for your effort.

At this point due to both 'Mechs that are more tonnage restricted then crit restricted, and the performance of non-laser weapons in heavy 'Mechs and bellow not being internally seen as heatsink tuning really being that much of an issue right now, we are currently of the mind that while that ability is always on the table for us, we are not fully convinced that it is the best direction to move in due to the factors surrounding it. But I'm more then willing to hear other opinions on the matter.

[Y E O N N E]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:

But there is a big difference between using quirks to make up for bad geometry, bad hardpoint placement, or making up for lack of hardpoint variety, and those that are seen as a "barrier to entry" to ever properly consider a 'Mech as being viable, or pushing builds into territories where your in-match performance is negatively affected because there is only ever one way to "properly" outfit a 'Mech around it's assigned quirks.

There is already usually one way to properly customize a 'Mech to perform well, regardless of the presence of quirks. If it's not the quirks dictating it, it's the hardpoints, shape, size, and weight. You cannot escape it. That's what I was trying to say on the previous page: the quirks do not encourage boating or anything "meta", because that's going to happen regardless since the core features of the game make it beneficial.

Quote

Additionally, and this is just my own personal opinion, I do not like being in a position where only the IS side has a wide reaching access to "flavor" quirks that pushes a greater diversity of what different 'Mechs are tuned to do, but on the clan side, we end up having to be a bit more reserved on quirk assignments due to scaling concerns with the a-symetrical equipment balance between the factions. Since the clans typically have better core equipment almost across the board....

Just saying, this is entirely on PGI. Nothing is stopping you from allowing IS to be more naturally competitive naturally except your (as in PGI's) own vision (or lack thereof). We've given you, time and again, the proper solutions to fixing this but you consistently try and come at the problem sideways...and not once has it ever worked.

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 04:32 PM, said:

We have thought about this, but we keep coming back to a few particular issues. One of them being lighter Clan 'Mechs. While Clan DHS have the 33% crit advantages which compounds on heavier chassis, 'Mechs that are more limited by tonnage restrictions don't have the same level of scalability issues that you see on the higher end of the weight spectrum. So creating an asymmetry with the heat sinks in that regard might bring heavier chassis' into alignment, but then unfairly punish those chassis' on the lighter side of the weight spectrum, or heavier 'Mechs that rely on non-laser weapons which don't see the same scaling issues that you often find with heatsink boating with lasers.

So you quirk those Clan 'Mechs, same as you have been doing with IS 'Mechs. It's been only marginally successful with the IS because you never give them enough potency in those quirks and with enough broad application to reach parity with the Clans. Logistically, there are fewer Clan 'Mechs that will be negatively impacted as you describe than there are IS 'Mechs negatively impacted by the current arrangement. How much of your time do you want to dedicate to individually tweaking 'Mechs for heat gen/dissipation and how confident are you that you will get each of those tweaks correct?

Quote

As we said in the OP, Heat is a global system, and so there for has to be considered across the global spectrum of not just lasers, but all weapons. To this end, I guess I should ask my own question to this to see the response. Take Lasers 100% off the table, and is heatsink boating on the clan side still an issue for anything 70 tons and under? I often see heatsinks much like ammo, sure you can boat tremendous amounts of it, but at some point if you boat enough ammo, it should cut into your upfront damage output capabilities. Outside it's scalability with lasers, is it really as big of an issue with any other weapon type for a MAJORITY of the weight classes in the Clan roster? Be it Clan PPCs, Clan Missiles, or Clan Ballistics. And if it is, is it so out of alignment that it should be hit at the expense of all the other weapons that it is not causing issues with?

Even without the lasers, it's a problem.

For example, an EBJ can run a pair of cUAC/10 and 3x cERML with 5 tons of ammo and 15 cDHS while running 81 kph with a cXL 325.

For the IS, a CPLT-K2 runs a pair of UAC/10 and 3x ERML with 5 tons of ammo and 12 total DHS while running at 69 kph with an XL 280; without quirks it is hotter, slower, shorter-ranged, less powerful, and less durable. A Jagermech is even less desirable because it can't strip even one arm.

Even stepping up 5 tons to a WHM-6R built similarly and with the ability to strip both arms, is only going to fit 13 DHS, and it also sacrifices durability as well as ammo. Without any quirks, this wouldn't get a second glance.

With PPCs, compare an HBK-IIC-A to an SHD-2K, and that's with a 5-ton advantage! The Clan 'Mech has 22 DHS to cool a pair of 14.5 heat guns dealing 30 damage total and the IS 'Mech has 18 to cool a pair of 13.5 heat guns dealing 20 damage total. You gave the IS a higher rate of fire to make up the damage, but you neglected to give them a meaningful heat advantage to actually use it.

The only non-laser cases where IS come out at parity in both damage an alpha involves HGauss or MRMs, which have their own set of massive drawbacks (being really close-range, being slow, and/or super spread damage) and which even still requires massive quirks to work: Armor on the ANH, FNR, RGH, QKD, BSW; agility on the CP-S; cooldown on the QKD-IV4, WVR-7D, CPLT-C4, TBT-7M. Nobody really runs HGR on MALs and MADs or MRMs on CPLT-A1s because they don't have anything going for them that is enough to offset the drawbacks.

Quote

At this point due to both 'Mechs that are more tonnage restricted then crit restricted, and the performance of non-laser weapons in heavy 'Mechs and bellow not being internally seen as heatsink tuning really being that much of an issue right now, we are currently of the mind that while that ability is always on the table for us, we are not fully convinced that it is the best direction to move in due to the factors surrounding it. But I'm more then willing to hear other opinions on the matter.

Like I said above, you need to ask yourself how much time you want to spend tweaking hundreds of IS 'Mechs versus tens of Clan 'Mechs.

For what it's worth, you don't necessarily have to change IS heatsinks; you can also just reduce the heat on the weapons themselves. I do not honestly know what possessed PGI to make IS ER lasers have almost identical damage-to-heat ratios as their Clan counterparts, knowing full-well that IS cannot cool them with the same effectiveness. Same deal goes with ballistics; it makes zero sense that an IS UAC/10 should be the same heat while being 3 slots larger, 3 tons heavier, and 90 meters closer...having one-less shell and marginally better jam characteristics is not sufficient compensation. DItto every other AC, UAC, and LB-X. I would also say ditto SRMs, but Clan SRMs have been nerfed to near-uselessness in terms of spread. Clan LRM boats run much cooler than their IS counterparts per volley-size, too.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 13 September 2018 - 07:57 PM.

[Sereglach]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 04:32 PM, said:

Because again, due to the heat system's need to feed into all the other weapon systems, this is not something where we would be looking to hit in order to target any individual type of weapon or playstyle, as that is a quick way to effectively nerf everything for the sake of hitting a system where you should only have been hitting the weapons to begin with. As nerfing everything just to get to a single weapon or playstyle more often then not just results in landing you right back where you started, only now with everything feeling worse for your effort.

Isn't that outright contradictory to your OP? I'm sincere in asking. It was stated that you wanted to retain some capacity on heatsinks in order to assist some builds that spike harder than others . . . of which PPCs, SRMs, and AC20s are directly mentioned:

Chris Lowrey, on 06 September 2018 - 04:36 PM, said:

Heatsink Changes in PTS 2.0 / 2.1:

Regarding the shutdown threshold though, while we do see value in the direction, we felt that both PTS 2.0 and PTS 2.1 still did not get us to where we wanted to be. We feel that the PTS changes pushed the dial too far into the sustained DPS camp, and too aggressively punished all but the most highly optimized high alpha builds. Chief among them, a number of high damage + High heat, non-laser weapons such as PPC's, AC/20's, mass SRM, did not have enough threshold to effectively utilize their load-outs, nor the dissipation through lower heat sink investments due to higher weapon weights to properly sustain their builds for long. We have decided that we will be significantly reducing threshold values, but we will not be going with a flat value as tested in PTS 2.0 and 2.1. This is in order to provide those that do invest in additional heatsinks just a bit more threshold compared to those that do not invest it to give you a bit more overhead to utilize in burst heat situations, but no where near the levels that they used to occupy. At least for double heatsinks.

That is utterly counter-intuitive. It seems more like the Ghost Heat of AC20s, PPCs, and SRMs should be decreased. After all, didn't we just increase the ghost heat penalty of SRMs recently? Why aren't we addressing that facet instead of retaining capacity on heatsinks? You're direct response to PTS 2.0/2.1 is going to be to do a global change rather than addressing the outliers, as needed.

It seems to me, rather than starting off with retained capacity on heatsinks, we should reverse the recent nerfs to SRM Ghost Heat and reduce the penalty of AC20 and PPC Ghost Heat values. Then, after a month or two, if we see that capacity concerns are a serious issue, then maybe start with changes in weapon heat values or continued changes in Ghost Heat before we look at heatsink capacity additions. Only after all of that fails should we then look at adding capacity back to heat sinks; and if we reach that point we should start significantly lower than .5 heat capacity per heatsink . . . maybe 0.2 might be a better place to start.

[Bud Crue]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:

To elaborate on this, we are not advocating the reduction / removal of quirks from 'Mechs that need them,

"mechs that need them"

Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad its so objective and clear cut. See, I was confused by the whole "ramping down of some of the more aggressively quirked mechs" thing in your original postings above. The most aggressively quirked mech are in fact some of the worst mechs in the game, so I was a tad concerned given your track record of nerffing EVERYTHING when only certain very specific things are actually an issue in terms of over performance.

Since your qualifier above is so absolute and clear, it fills me with nothing but total confidence that you won't nerf clear under performers as you have in the past, but will only address objective and definitve over performers for your nerfing.

Whew!

[Bud Crue]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:

Additionally, and this is just my own personal opinion, I do not like being in a position where only the IS side has a wide reaching access to "flavor" quirks that pushes a greater diversity of what different 'Mechs are tuned to do, but on the clan side, we end up having to be a bit more reserved on quirk assignments due to scaling concerns with the a-symetrical equipment balance between the factions.

Soooo, you don't like being in this position? Huh.

The various and in some cases large rule of 8 quirks on some clan omni mechs are not in your view "flavor" (which the last time we argued about this you called them a mechanism to encourage "lore type" builds" and to me that is "flavor, but a 5% quirk on a specific weapon of an IS mech is something you consider somehow limiting, an example of what you once called power creep, something that forces players into a specific optimized build?

Umm. I think you may have this a wee bit wrong.

You speak of "diversity" and being forced to be "reserved" on the "clan side". Yet you freely acknowledge the clan side has overall superior equipment and capabilities. How is the above nerffings even being considered because of what...a 2 point reduction in clan HLL damage? Great. How about we call the current long burn 18 damage HLL and call it clan flavor. Then give back SPLs on both side an actual decent function and that can be flavor too. Then maybe add the point back to IS LPLs and that can be even more flavor.

[Tarl Cabot]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 September 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

snip...

For example, an EBJ can run a pair of cUAC/10 and 3x cERML with 5 tons of ammo and 15 cDHS while running 81 kph with a cXL 325.

For the IS, a CPLT-K2 runs a pair of UAC/10 and 3x ERML with 5 tons of ammo and 10 extra 12 total DHS while running at 69 kph with an XL 280; without quirks it is hotter, slower, shorter-ranged, less powerful,and less durable. A Jagermech is even less desirable because it can't strip even one arm.

Just to build up on the less durable portion, the IS loses a ST, it is dead while the EBJ can continue fighting and drawing fire/absorbing damage that could be aimed at his teammates. Change 280XL to a 250 LFE and it is running even slower and loses heatsinks and a slot.

Edit, hmm, but the number of DHS do not match up for the Catapult unless you meant extra 2 DHS (10 engine and 2 external)

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 13 September 2018 - 08:53 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Tarl Cabot, on 13 September 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

Edit, hmm, but the number of DHS do not match up for the Catapult unless you meant extra 2 DHS (10 engine and 2 external)

Copy-paste foibles.

[Tarl Cabot]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

This is a particular point that I am always pushing on my end when I can. (Especially since I said I was looking into it at one point in a QA more then a year ago.)

Like Paul has said elsewhere, it often comes down to bandwidth. And engines are just unfortunately a very tight knot to try and unfurl on our end for improvements. Especially when there are many other avenues we can target for improvements and get them implemented in a more timely manner.

By no means does this mean that it's fallen off my radar. But lots of things need to happen in order to have it put up for consideration, most of which is completely outside of my control. As with anything in development, we can say the exact same thing for any number of other improvements that are currently in production now or on deck for development. So while its not on the table for right now, this does not mean we won't consider it in the future.

Chris, thanks for taking the time and responding. At least for myself and some others, this is still a thorn in the side, especially once PGI was able to add negative, non-lethal effect when a ST was lost. Imagine if isXL and cXL were released at the same time with the current or similar results with the loss of a side torso, how much grief would that have generated? And take note Yeonne's example helps demonstrates the issues of where the playing field is not even close with the isXL and other engines when it is damaged.

Yeonne Greene, on 13 September 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

For example, an EBJ can run a pair of cUAC/10 and 3x cERML with 5 tons of ammo and 15 cDHS while running 81 kph with a cXL 325.

For the IS, a CPLT-K2 runs a pair of UAC/10 and 3x ERML with 5 tons of ammo and 12 total DHS while running at 69 kph with an XL 280; without quirks it is hotter, slower, shorter-ranged, less powerful, and less durable. A Jagermech is even less desirable because it can't strip even one arm.

I believe most understand that having a fully functional engine crit system, something PGI had been hinting at each time they ADDED a penalty w/ST for cXL, would NOT really work in this type of environment, based on how PGI has the crit system setup and, lets be honest, it would likely not be as robust as it would need to be, though people would likely front load their armor as much as they do now and would make arty and airstrikes even more deadly, as well as the MG ninjas.

Again, thanks but I honestly believe PGI is messing up here by not putting this (added - isXL surviving loss of a ST) on the table. If IS Omnis are introduced this is something that PGI will have to look hard at, since it could be the loss of sales. Hell, Clan Omnis were introduced with no negative effects to the loss of one side torso. Several months before the 20% heat dissipation penalty then a year later before the 20% movement penalty.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 13 September 2018 - 10:04 PM.

[FupDup]

Tarl Cabot, on 13 September 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

I believe most understand that having a fully functional engine crit system, something PGI had been hinting at each time they ADDED a penalty w/ST for cXL, would not really work in this type of environment, based on how PGI has the crit system setup and, lets be honest, it would likely not be as robust as it would need to be, though people would likely front load their armor as much as they do now and would make arty and airstrikes even more deadly, as well as the MG ninjas.

Again, thanks but I honestly believe PGI is messing up here by not putting this on the table.

Engine crits just make everybody die faster, in fact the IS XL occupies the most critslots so it has a higher chance of being critted out.

[Y E O N N E]

And nobody likes being killed while their structure is just yellow.

[Tarl Cabot]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 September 2018 - 09:04 PM, said:

And nobody likes being killed while their structure is just yellow.

No one would like, since that never happened in MWO. Edited my post for clarification around isXL simply surviving a ST loss. I had added the part about actual engine crit system since that was something PGI originally said they were looking into, and there are some who would want it. As many others, including myself, it would not work in this environment unless it was so robust PGI might have as well as have stuck with the current Flag/penalty when a ST is lost.

And with that said, it goes to durability. Use the TT engine rules as the flavor but there is no reason to use that one hard rule of 3 engine crits = death with loss of one ST, since it does not happen with a STD (6 engine slots) nor LFE/cXL ( 4 engine slots = both ST).

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 13 September 2018 - 10:17 PM.

[Korz]

Chris Lowrey, on 13 September 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

This is a particular point that I am always pushing on my end when I can. (Especially since I said I was looking into it at one point in a QA more then a year ago.)

Like Paul has said elsewhere, it often comes down to bandwidth. And engines are just unfortunately a very tight knot to try and unfurl on our end for improvements. Especially when there are many other avenues we can target for improvements and get them implemented in a more timely manner.

By no means does this mean that it's fallen off my radar. But lots of things need to happen in order to have it put up for consideration, most of which is completely outside of my control. As with anything in development, we can say the exact same thing for any number of other improvements that are currently in production now or on deck for development. So while its not on the table for right now, this does not mean we won't consider it in the future.

See if you can float changing the engines so IS get engine heat sinks sooner say 200 rated engines, and then can mount two additional heats sinks for each engine then a clan mech ( more or less, there will be some over lap areas and some where it is only one additional).

Also add in an additional leg only heat sink for IS. This will be a two slot leg heat sink more expensive then a standard double heat sink and it will add external fins to any mech they are mounted on. They will have a higher chance of being crit when armor is gone as they are both internal and externally mounted.

Those two things would go a long way to giving IS more heat dissipation but make then unique from clans.

[Y E O N N E]

Korz, on 14 September 2018 - 05:01 AM, said:

Those two things would go a long way to giving IS more heat dissipation but make then unique from clans.

This still requires tons and slots, which are already being pushed to the limit on most IS chassis. They wouldn't be able to take advantage of your changes without further giving up firepower.

[TheCaptainJZ]

What if the engines on clan mechs ran hotter when moving? Would that help balance? Is that code-able?