129 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

With the new Warhammer IIC, it is time PGI gives some bandwidth on making changes to engings, particularly the survivability of the isXL w/loss of one side torso, in a game that is not using dice to determine hit/miss and location of said damage when it does hit. And we all agree that IS components are either heavier and/or take up more slots while their weapons also have a shorter range.

It is time to bring the engines inline, sharing the same benefit of surviving the loss of one side torso when equipped with a isXL which both cXL and LFE benefits from.

Example, Warhammer 6D - LFE 300 -20 DHS / 3LL + 4ERML or isXL 325 (with an one more DHS and AMS/Ammo + LFF and some shaved armor and speed increase) Yet with the isXL the mech would be finished when a ST is destroyed. Take a similar Clan mech it continues along its way, with a penalty but it SURVIVED one ST being destroyed, it is still a target that needs to be taken care of.

And due to DHS taking up 3 slots instead of 2 slots, the weight savings can be used for more heatsinks except the slot that gets opened up in the engine at 325 rating.

And lets not forgot IS have Omnimechs, which if they follow PGI Clan Omni construction rules, will have locked engines, mostly isXL engines.

MWO Engine Weights by Type

Spoiler

And I did appreciate Chris' reply below to my question in another thread, but PGI is NOT going to lower component weight, amount of crits occupied, better component benefits (Endo/Ferro) or even increase engine speed. And quirks are giveth and taketh away.

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.

And screw lore to Timbuktu with regards of of the current engine setup.

/where is that bottle of whiskey... email to PGI to cancel some orders..frak this.

Edit

And for those who say LFE is enough, it is not at times.

My suggestion.

LFE 15% movement penalty - 20% engine heat dissipation penalty
cXL 20% movement penalty - 30% engine heat dissipation penalty
isXL 30% movement penalty - 45% engine heat dissipation penalty

Edit 10-05-18 - many who may read this thread may not read the other posts pass a certain point.

By making isXL survive one side torso lost (with non-lethal penalties), exactly what would IS mechs gain that Clan mechs 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...

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 05 October 2018 - 03:57 PM.

[Prototelis]

There is no point to LFE with ST survivable IsXL, and your proposal doesn't differentiate between the two well enough to make LFE a viable choice over the IsXL.

They should just find a different way to buff isXL. Give it more speed, let it slot heatsinks in the ST engine slots, better cooling; Something different that doesn't invalidate the existence of LFE.

[FupDup]

Prototelis, on 03 October 2018 - 05:28 PM, said:

There is no point to LFE with ST survivable IsXL, and your proposal doesn't differentiate between the two well enough to make LFE a viable choice over the IsXL.

They should just find a different way to buff isXL. Give it more speed, let it slot heatsinks in the ST engine slots, better cooling; Something different that doesn't invalidate the existence of LFE.

To that effect I've believed in the following changes for a while:

1. Clan XL is the golden baseline, it's not getting touched.

2. IS XL now gives mechs who mount it extra side torso structure and armor such that their ST health equals their CT health. Sidecore death mechanic is retained.

3. LFE now gives extra HP on all three torso sections.

4. STD (both sides) now gives significantly more HP on the CT and improves dissipation a bit.


I imagine that the coding for it could be handled similar to how Targeting Computers basically give you quirks for mounting them. They could also use some of the coding from the survival tree that gives different values per mech weight.

[thievingmagpi]

IS and Clans are different and should stay that way.

[El Bandito]

One very easy way to improve IS XL, is to give it even more weight savings compared to Clan XL. Sure, stock builds will have leftover tonnage, but such a change will not break any of them. After all, isn't the allure of MWO customization? With IS XL improved in such way IS will have much wider option for customization, especially since they wont have to be enslaved by 14 slot Endo steel upgrade, due to extra tonnage available--which translates to more space for crap IS DHS to be crammed in.

Man, I wish IS DHS would get some buffs.

Edited by El Bandito, 03 October 2018 - 07:51 PM.

[Nightbird]

no

[CanadianCyrus]

I recall seeing another thread where someone posted that with small cockpit and a few other additions a LFE IS Mech can get close in free tonnage to an IS XL mech. Might be the way to go IMO. However that leaves IS Omni's which I agree should be able to survive ST destruction (But should only be unique to IS Omni and not IS Battlemech provided they add the other customization options). Not only are they XL, but also most of the heavier Omni's only go 64kph which doesn't make them very nimble at being able to dodge incoming fire.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 03 October 2018 - 07:11 PM, said:

One very easy way to improve IS XL, is to give it even more weight savings compared to Clan XL. Sure, stock builds will have leftover tonnage, but such a change will not break any of them. After all, isn't the allure of MWO customization? With IS XL improved in such way IS will have much wider option for customization, especially since they wont have to be enslaved by Endo steel upgrade due to extra tonnage available--which translates to more space for crap IS DHS to be crammed in.

Man, I wish IS DHS would get some buffs.

The reason that people don't use the IS XL on most heavies or assaults isn't because it's too heavy. It's because it's too squishy.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 03 October 2018 - 07:18 PM, said:

The reason that people don't use the IS XL on most heavies or assaults isn't because it's too heavy. It's because it's too squishy.

True, but it opens more doors for IS Mediums and Lights.

And some IS big mechs, such as my XL Battlemaster/Warhammer, WILL benefit.

[Wing 0]

NO.

[50 50]

At this point I think I'd prefer to see the tech lines merged and we get rid of the duplicates and use the clan equipment where there is a duplicate. Ditch some of the silliness created by the quirks.... again.

The only mode to have some sort of lore related difference is in Faction Play and that could be done via Faction based quirks in that mode.
Quick play with mixed teams you don't really want tech differences.

Yes, part of the fun is having different build options but that ended when we got the IIC variants.

Shift the time line forward a few years and everything got merged anyway.

[thievingmagpi]

If I could run a Commando with a Clan XL I don't think I'd ever lose.

[Khobai]

ISXL should survive side torso destruction and have the same penalties as CXL. That would allow IS omnimechs to actually be viable as well.

LFE should have no penalties when it loses a side torso, get a small structure bonus, and possibly a small heat dissipation bonus

STD should get a large structure bonus and a large heat dissipation bonus

Fixed. then theres a reason to use all three engines. And IS structure quirks could also be reduced across the board.

thievingmagpi, on 03 October 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

If I could run a Commando with a Clan XL I don't think I'd ever lose.

IS mechs wouldnt keep all their structure quirks if ISXL was changed to work like CXL. since one of the main reasons they have structure quirks in the first place is to make the current ISXL suck less.

To accommodate the engine changes, IS structure quirks would definitely have to be reduced on certain mechs.

thievingmagpi, on 03 October 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

IS and Clans are different and should stay that way.

No. We tried that and it didnt work. Game needs to be balanced more than IS and Clans need to be different.

The best way to balance the game is to get rid of one of the biggest sources of imbalance by making ISXL work like CXL.

And then after that balance ISDHS so theyre every bit as good as CDHS. And do the same for ISFF/ISES.

Edited by Khobai, 04 October 2018 - 03:35 AM.

[Mystere]

Tarl Cabot, on 03 October 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

And screw lore to Timbuktu with regards of of the current engine setup.

It is way too late to make the changes you want 5 years into the game. Those are things that should have been part of the design decisions made on day 0.

50 50, on 03 October 2018 - 07:54 PM, said:

At this point I think I'd prefer to see the tech lines merged and we get rid of the duplicates and use the clan equipment where there is a duplicate.

No. Way. In. Hell.

Edited by Mystere, 04 October 2018 - 03:39 AM.

[Appogee]

No, I'd rather we keep Clan and IS separate and different.

[Khobai]

Appogee, on 04 October 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

No, I'd rather we keep Clan and IS separate and different.

then the game will never be balanced

[warner2]

Separate and different, but remove some of the bigger imbalances that result from following lore, like IS XL behaviour.

[thievingmagpi]

Khobai, on 04 October 2018 - 03:50 AM, said:

then the game will never be balanced

Ridiculous for a number of reasons.


1) the dichotomy of high damage, longer range but hotter with slower cooldown and longer burntime lasers with average ballistics and missiles vs shorter range, less damage, but faster firing and cooler lasers with good ballistics and missiles = fantastic gameplay design. boring, samesy systems = bad design

2) the dichotomy of well armed, fast but fairly flimsy vs slower and tankier = good gameplay.

3) who cares about balance between factions? don't like a mech get a different one. simple.

really, gameplay balance needs a handful of fairly minor numerical tweaks. that's it.

saying that IS needs to equal clans is moronic. git gud. bring heavy gauss. bring crab. bring bushwacker. bring wolfhound.

keep getting rekt in IS XL engines? Learn to to torso twist or just try not getting hit.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 04 October 2018 - 05:16 AM.

[MrXanthios]

Nightbird, on 03 October 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

no

Wing 0, on 03 October 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:

NO.

Absolutely YES, one of the few good ideas out here about balance.

[Appogee]

Khobai, on 04 October 2018 - 03:50 AM, said:

then the game will never be balanced

It's entirely possible to balance things that are different.

Edited by Appogee, 04 October 2018 - 08:10 AM.