129 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Edited and added to OP - 10-05-18 - many who may read this thread may not read many of the other posts...


By making isXL survive one side torso lost (with non-lethal penalties), exactly what would IS mechs gain that Clan mechs, Omni by default, though more specific Clan Battlemechs, do not gain when said Clan mechs are equipped with cXL? As for IS LFE, PGI can make the penalties different enough so that it would make both feasible, more so for builds that tend to lose a side torso more often than not, even with torso twisting.

And is there really an IS boogeymech that sends shivers down people spines if said mech was equipped with a survivable isXL instead of a LFE? Seriously...

[VonBruinwald]

Tarl Cabot, on 05 October 2018 - 04:01 PM, said:

And is there really an IS boogeymech that sends shivers down people spines if said mech was equipped with a survivable isXL instead of a LFE? Seriously...

Yes, you can't exploit an imbalance if things are balanced.


All engines should survive a single ST destruction
LFE/XLs should be destroyed on two
STDs should require CT destruction.

The only difference between the XLs is the IS XL should have a larger penalty associated with side destruction because it's, well, larger.

It isn't complicated.

CXL/LFE - 20% movement penalty, 2 Heatsinks destroyed.
ISXL - 30% movement penalty, 3 Heatsinks destroyed.
XXL - 60% and 6 because guess what, it uses 6 slots per ST... you see the pattern here.

And should we dream and give the Clans a cLFE, 10% and 1 because... 1 slot in the ST

[Quicksilver Aberration]

VonBruinwald, on 05 October 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

All engines should survive a single ST destruction
LFE/XLs should be destroyed on two
STDs should require CT destruction.

This doesn't make STDs any more attractive given you can rarely have significant firepower when you are sticked, and the below doesn't really make it anymore attractive.

VonBruinwald, on 05 October 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

CXL/LFE - 20% movement penalty, 2 Heatsinks destroyed.
ISXL - 30% movement penalty, 3 Heatsinks destroyed.

So iXL is still strictly inferior to Clan XL.....why?

[Tarl Cabot]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 October 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

This doesn't make STDs any more attractive given you can rarely have significant firepower when you are sticked, and the below doesn't really make it anymore attractive.


So iXL is still strictly inferior to Clan XL.....why?

Simply using the BT engine crit as flavor. 1st engine crit 5 heat penalty, 2nd engine crit 10 heat penalty, if add 3rd engine crit but not destroyed, it woudl be 15 heat. With a SHS and only 10 engine HS, 2nd crit would mean no cooling down with even walking causing heat buildup. So it would make sense in the beginning 3rd engine crit destroyed because w/SHS being the only type and many IS mechs running with only 10 engine HS, and that is on the TT.

But with PGI MWO, they can use that as flavor without needing to stick to only one of the hard rules, ie 3 engine crits/destroyed because the system does not have a fully functioning engine crit system, nor would I want MWO to go to it because it would either decrease TTK overall or they would have to make it so robust that it would make no sense, and it would likely increase the coding difficulty. Whereas right now it is a flag, 1st side torso destroyed - check engine type - penalties unless STD, 2nd ST destroyed, check engine type, dead mech unless STD.

3 out of 12 slots is 25% shielding destroyed vs 2 out of 10 slots or 20% shielding destroyed.

Current setup for cXL/LFE is 40% or 4 out of 10 engine HS. 2 out of 10 HS is 20% vs 3 out of 10 engine HS is 30%. I am not sure PGI would reduce cXL back down to 20%, maybe 25% to 30%, while isXL 35% to 45%. Same weight savings but a larger portion of isXL is being destroyed. And since LFE is heavier for each engine rating (less weight savings), tis penalty could be balanced by it having lesser percentage penalties.

That is the way I would look at it, smaller weight savings means slower, less maneuverable mech or said mech taking fewer and/or smaller weapon ratings/caliber while retaining speed.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 05 October 2018 - 08:18 PM.

[dante245]

agreed

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarl Cabot, on 05 October 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

Simply using the BT engine crit as flavor. 1st engine crit 5 heat penalty, 2nd engine crit 10 heat penalty, if add 3rd engine crit but not destroyed, it woudl be 15 heat. With a SHS and only 10 engine HS, 2nd crit would mean no cooling down with even walking causing heat buildup. So it would make sense in the beginning 3rd engine crit destroyed because w/SHS being the only type and many IS mechs running with only 10 engine HS, and that is on the TT.

But with PGI MWO, they can use that as flavor without needing to stick to only one of the hard rules, ie 3 engine crits/destroyed because the system does not have a fully functioning engine crit system, nor would I want MWO to go to it because it would either decrease TTK overall or they would have to make it so robust that it would make no sense, and it would likely increase the coding difficulty. Whereas right now it is a flag, 1st side torso destroyed - check engine type - penalties unless STD, 2nd ST destroyed, check engine type, dead mech unless STD.

3 out of 12 slots is 25% shielding destroyed vs 2 out of 10 slots or 20% shielding destroyed.

Current setup for cXL/LFE is 40% or 4 out of 10 engine HS. 2 out of 10 HS is 20% vs 3 out of 10 engine HS is 30%. I am not sure PGI would reduce cXL back down to 20%, maybe 25% to 30%, while isXL 35% to 45%. Same weight savings but a larger portion of isXL is being destroyed. And since LFE is heavier for each engine rating (less weight savings), tis penalty could be balanced by it having lesser percentage penalties.

That is the way I would look at it, smaller weight savings means slower, less maneuverable mech or said mech taking fewer and/or smaller weapon ratings/caliber while retaining speed.

This answered nothing about my question, or at least, nothing that made sense.

[ingramli]

Endless debate and unanimous consent will never happen.

Clanners will never want ISXL got death free ST loss penalty, no matter what,

IS side will never stopped crying for this, as ST death is such a decisive matter for the balance of gameplay (and this is true without damage spreading mechanism like the tabletop, 1 or 2 alpha to a ST for instance death is a joke)

The bottom line is, the clanners will never switch to IS tech, regardless of the heat/damage focus advantage, and all other buffs made to the IS side.

[Mcgral18]

Balance equipment?
That sounds complicated


Let's just add arbitrary quirks to robots every now and then
That sounds better

[Mystere]

Stop beating around the bush and ask for a "real" critical hit system.

Edited by Mystere, 06 October 2018 - 04:29 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 06 October 2018 - 04:28 AM, said:

Stop beating around the bush and ask for a "real" critical hit system.

Cuz that fixes the imbalance

[thievingmagpi]

Khobai, on 05 October 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

why? do you even have a reason? or are you just being obstinate for the sake of it?

engines arnt balanced now. IS vs clan isnt balanced either.

balancing out the engines would be a start towards improving the game's balance

or we could just leave the game unbalanced mess, which doesnt improve the game at all.



.

Because engines not being the same isn't a balance issue. That's just bs.

Clans have x, IS have Y.

They aren't balanced against each other. SQ allows you to bring any mech you want. The concept of IS vs Clans exists only in your head. This "clanners do this and IS does that" is some mechdad lorewarrior ****. Play mechs that are fun to play.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 06 October 2018 - 08:31 AM.

[Prototelis]

When are you folks going to let go of the BUT DUH CLANNERS and BUT DUH IS.

There aren't enough people left to have stupid agendas like that.

The majority of the playerbase plays both tech bases.

We don't want ST survivable IsXL because making both tech bases the same defeats the purpose of having more than one type of tech.

Which is why I propose finding a different way to buff the engine class; like mo betta twisting, better speed, something else other than removing one of the small bits of flavor the game still has.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

thievingmagpi, on 06 October 2018 - 08:29 AM, said:

They aren't balanced against each other.

Actually they are because both tech bases share an engine, the Standard.

[Humpday]

There is a level of excitement and heightened awareness that occurs when playing ISXL...

Keep IS XL.

Also, show me someone that can pull off 1.{2..5}k/d after getting halfed in a clan XL mech...you wont' why? Because most of you, 90% of you, cannot even break out of 2k/d a match in a healthy mech.

Keep a little flavor in the game, whats left of it, because from what the trends are showing now, that games is due for a turn down and a reboot. Numbers dont' lie.

[thievingmagpi]

Prototelis, on 06 October 2018 - 08:55 AM, said:

When are you folks going to let go of the BUT DUH CLANNERS and BUT DUH IS.

There aren't enough people left to have stupid agendas like that.

The majority of the playerbase plays both tech bases.

We don't want ST survivable IsXL because making both tech bases the same defeats the purpose of having more than one type of tech.

Which is why I propose finding a different way to buff the engine class; like mo betta twisting, better speed, something else other than removing one of the small bits of flavor the game still has.

Humpday, on 06 October 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

There is a level of excitement and heightened awareness that occurs when playing ISXL...

Keep IS XL.

Also, show me someone that can pull off 1.{2..5}k/d after getting halfed in a clan XL mech...you wont' why? Because most of you, 90% of you, cannot even break out of 2k/d a match in a healthy mech.

Keep a little flavor in the game, whats left of it, because from what the trends are showing now, that games is due for a turn down and a reboot. Numbers dont' lie.

Yeah, this.

It was fun back in the day taking an XL Banshee and toeing that high danger line.

Making everything too samey is boring A.F.

I'd also agree that (minor) buffs for bringing IS XL would be neat. Maybe slightly increase heat dissipation and agility to encourage the risk/reward gameplay.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

thievingmagpi, on 06 October 2018 - 09:22 AM, said:

Yeah, this.

It was fun back in the day taking an XL Banshee and toeing that high danger line.

That's not really toeing the danger line given the mech typically just ate CT shots if you went STD so you might as well go with an XL.

That said, the risk simply isn't worth the reward on a majority of mechs which is why many have suggested to have the iXL provide side torso structure/armor buffs. Even with "minor" dissipation buffs because IS already can't compare to Clan dissipation rates.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 October 2018 - 09:28 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 October 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

snip

So iXL is still strictly inferior to Clan XL.....why?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 October 2018 - 08:30 PM, said:

This answered nothing about my question, or at least, nothing that made sense.

What does the IS have that is not slightly inferior to Clan tech, other than AC/UAC pellet amounts? Right now isXL is extremely inferior to cXL due to survivability differences on the loss of a side torso, one doesnt while the other one does. Remove the death aspect with equal weight savings then the difference the amount of heat shielding material being loss. isXL loses 3 slots out of a total 12 slots (25%) vs cXL 2 slots out of 10 slots (20%). The heat dissipation penalty is from the engine crit chart while PGI took the movement penalty from the TT heat scale chart. isXL becomes less inferior now to the cXL w/destruction of 1st ST.

[thievingmagpi]

there is no Clan vs IS.

play mechs that are fun.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 06 October 2018 - 09:55 AM.

[Khobai]

thievingmagpi, on 06 October 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

they aren't balanced against each other. SQ allows you to bring any mech you want.

thievingmagpi, on 06 October 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

there is no Clan vs IS.

There is Clan vs IS. Its called Faction Play.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 October 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

Cuz that fixes the imbalance

It's called a start.

Besides, Clans vs. IS balance only means anything within the context of CW. It is meaningless anywhere else.