137 replies to this topic

[Sable Dove]

FupDup, on 27 December 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:

Also it's pretty hilarious to consider the LFE to be overpowered for even a nanosecond.

The LFE had replaced the standard engine on basically every build that isn't a heavy gauss or a small handful of assault mech builds. The only mechs that didn't use a LFE are the <45 tonners that use an XL because they're more likely to lose a leg before they lose a ST, and a handful of heavier mechs with hitboxes that are naturally-suited to XLs.

Edited by Sable Dove, 27 December 2018 - 03:46 PM.

[FupDup]

Sable Dove, on 27 December 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

The LFE had replaced the standard engine on basically every build that isn't a heavy gauss or a small handful of assault mech builds. The only mechs that didn't use a LFE are the <45 tonners that use an XL because they're more likely to lose a leg before they lose a ST, and a handful of heavier mechs with hitboxes that are naturally-suited to XLs.

...And?

The STD and IS XL sit on very opposite gameplay extremes that greatly hamper most mechs between the assault and light class got shafted by. This gigantic gap was the single greatest weakness that the IS had relative to the Clans that really held them back outside of high-end assaults or lights. The point of the LFE was to bridge that gap by offering a moderate middle ground that works well for mechs in the middle of the gameplay spectrum (most heavies and mediums).

Getting each engine type to a completely equal pickrate across all weight classes and all loadouts is a fruitless goal because some mechs and loadouts inherently value certain attributes over others (i.e. lights always need to maximize their available tonnage, assaults generally have hitboxes too large and agility too low to protect their side torsos from XL destruction, etc).

[Sable Dove]

So being flat-out superior in virtually every significant way to its counterpart is not being overpowered? An equal pick isn't what I'm advocating; just maybe something a little less skewed than 66% LFE, 33% XL, and 1% STD.

Adherence to the tabletop policy of encouraging sales via power creep is not strictly necessary. PGI already deviates from the tabletop in significant ways; it's just more often they deviate where remaining faithful would be better, and remain faithful to the tabletop where changes would serve the game better.

Edited by Sable Dove, 27 December 2018 - 04:03 PM.

[Malachy Karrde]

You arent talking about the bug where your heat spikes and wont dissipate right? I shut down for 5 minutes once and it wouldnt dissipate.

[Y E O N N E]

Sable Dove, on 27 December 2018 - 04:03 PM, said:

So being flat-out superior in virtually every significant way to its counterpart is not being overpowered? An equal pick isn't what I'm advocating; just maybe something a little less skewed than 66% LFE, 33% XL, and 1% STD.

That's not at all what it is, though. Speaking in terms of competent builds and not the uncountable garbage bracket and meme builds, most IS Assaults are not running LFEs; they are running STDs.

Examples of IS Assaults most likely to be running STD include:
- Fafnir
- Annihilator
- Victors
- Cyclops
- Atlas
- Stalker
- Mauler

Examples IS Assaults most likely to be using LFE:
- Battlemaster
- Banshee
- King Crab

...and this is all because of slots. If you are IS and you want a lot of ballistics bigger than UAC/2, you need to run a STD to get the slots; even for LB-2X spam you need a STD if they are all in the torso as on the MAL-MX-90. If you are laser vomit with a small engine cap, you need a STD to get slots for DHS, as on the STK and ANH. You need a STD if you want to run even a single Heavy Gauss or LB-20X. You need a STD if you want to pack in four SRM6 with Artemis or MRM70 into a side torso.

This also applies in a more limited extent to Heavies, but because Heavies don't quite have the tonnage to use those big weapons they are more energy-laden and thus benefit from the engine HS slots opened up by the big LFE. You will rarely see a STD engine on a Medium or a Light because those 'Mechs have to move quickly to stay alive and because they can't fit threatening firepower while moving quickly with a STD engine. In an ideal world, a 6x Small Laser Locust with a STD 190 would be as dangerous as a 6x Medium Laser Locust on an XL190, but the game lacks enough dynamic control over weapon behavior to make that happen and, honestly, the hitpoint pool on a Locust is so low that anything cracking the ST is as likely to crack the CT, so there's not much to be gained from the durability anyway. That's the reality of gameplay.

XLs, being the polar opposite of STD engines, are to IS Lights and Mediums what the STD is to IS Assaults and Heavies. Almost every single well-built IS Light uses XL, with exception being the Urban Mech.

Quote

Adherence to the tabletop policy of encouraging sales via power creep is not strictly necessary. PGI already deviates from the tabletop in significant ways; it's just more often they deviate where remaining faithful would be better, and remain faithful to the tabletop where changes would serve the game better.

If you want to make engines have more trade-offs in a way that is somewhat faithful to table-top while also serving the game, you should do it by giving the engines some bonus characteristics intrinsic to their type that mitigate the more crippling weaknesses. For example:

- STD: offers a multiplier to heat capacity on equipped 'Mechs, to free up weight from DHS to be placed instead into weapons.
- XL: offers a multiplier to torso structure on equipped 'Mechs, enough to ensure a side-torso is not a shortcut to a kill from the CT.
- LFE: offers nothing

[Sable Dove]

Man, your post just reminds me of how bad an idea engine desync was.

I guess it's my fault for expecting PGI to actually put more than a token effort into balance when they've shown zero indication in the past of it being a consideration. That and I find overly-slow assaults boring to play because the low mobility doesn't really add much flavour, but it does make it take much longer to get to the exciting part of the match.

[Prototelis]

Rather than desync engines they should have just reduced the twist and accel bonuses the higher up you go in chassis weight.

I'm not sure if thats how it used to work, I played nothing but clan omnis when ST came out.

[Y E O N N E]

Sable Dove, on 27 December 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

Man, your post just reminds me of how bad an idea engine desync was.

I guess it's my fault for expecting PGI to actually put more than a token effort into balance when they've shown zero indication in the past of it being a consideration. That and I find overly-slow assaults boring to play because the low mobility doesn't really add much flavour, but it does make it take much longer to get to the exciting part of the match.

Engine desync was not a bad idea, it's still a good one. PGI's implementation was bad. Instead of using the 'Mechs that can twist and move competently with their right-sized engine as the baseline, they used the bad 'Mechs which can't twist and turn with their too-small engine as the baseline. Then they nerfed Anchor Turn and Torso Twist skills when they converted them into skill nodes.

[Monkey Lover]

Hating this more I play. Its really a direct nerf to my bawl mechs where i ride the heat at the max. Lot of my good brawl builds are setup to shield one side too.


Maybe just sit back,rotate and snipe like pgi wants me too.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 27 December 2018 - 05:46 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The entire point of engine desync, and this is how we told it to PGI even, is to make it so that the slow 'Mechs which can't bring big engines are able to turn and spread damage as well as the ones which can. Fundamentally, PGI took this and ran it the other way.

[Sable Dove]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

The entire point of engine desync, and this is how we told it to PGI even, is to make it so that the slow 'Mechs which can't bring big engines are able to turn and spread damage as well as the ones which can. Fundamentally, PGI took this and ran it the other way.

Well, I guess PGI is like a genie...
"We want engine-limited mechs to be able to spread damage as well as large-engine mechs."
"Okay, now all mechs are equally bad at spreading damage."
" "

[FupDup]

One of the main goals of the engine desync was to try to add a trade-off to playing a heavy mech instead of a medium, since an up-engined heavy could literally twist and turn at equal rates as a medium going similar speeds. Not saying it succeeded, but something certainly needed to be done about that. This game isn't supposed to be a linear hierarchy arm's race to the biggest robbits.

[Astrocanis]

Moadebe, on 16 December 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Well, I must admit that this is one change that can and will irritate not only myself but others. I actually like the heat cap being shortened with the loss of a ST...THAT part I think is ok. Not to mention I actually DO like the concept of "Hey I see a mech with an open ST* ... *shoots and destroys the ST and notices mech shut down....*

I do like that concept in that it gives a bit of a tactical advantage to PAY ATTENTION to the enemy mechs status and go for its apparent weaknesses.

HOWEVER, it is not implemented right in its current iteration. Here is a PRIME example of WHY i say that.

https://clips.twitch...KuduShazBotstix
(sorry for the random banter in the middle of it but yeah I think this proves a point here )

First off. Me shutting down was MY OWN FAULT. I made a bad...BAD mistake (had forgotten i had changed the weapons around and wasn't accustomed to the heat spike I had previously hit myself with.)

I shut down from my own dumbness. The problem comes when I see the startup animation kick in and suddenly my side torso is gone and IMMEDIATELY I shut down again....then im destroyed from an alpha into my rear CT.

I didn't get a chance to move. I didn't get a chance to fire....just mid animation shut down again. THIS is not ok.

What should happen is I should at least get a chance to power back up and at least DO SOMETHING....anything.

I honestly like the concept and direction of the change. However, not its current form. If it was treated like flamers where you can only go to that redline and it wont over heat you unless you use something that generates heat...I would be ok with it. Hell I think the last iteration of heatsink and heat scale were something similar. You lost a ST and your heating ability was just affected (lower cap and dissipation rate.)

Basically what I am saying is that a ST loss shouldnt shut you down right off the bat. It should at least spike your heat to the red line and if you are mid firing or you jj or use a heat generating weapon....THEN it shuts you down....like how a flamer will spike your heat and if you fire then shut down. Until you do fire a weapon you are severe red line with reduced heat dissipation and are in trouble, but you can STILL MOVE and do SOMETHING. Then if you fire and overheat its on you.

I know the last system was "sorta" like that, but not exactly. All I am saying is it felt like being "stunlocked" in an MMO and if there is one thing that will take a lot of fun out of a game it is getting killed with no control of your character due to the actions of others.

Just my two cents. Hope this reaches the right ears....

Two problems that I see. We are already playing HideWarrior Online. This is going to exacerbate this. Secondly, this decreases TTK significantly and rewards damage in spectacular ways. It's bad enough that people will do darned near anything to protect their precious paint. When those few who actually DO push are shutdown and destroyed, it will make for even more 12-2 / 2-12 games. As it is, a one unit advantage can be overcome, but as the situation escalates, it gets to be practically impossible.

And that PIR-1 that is hiding out with his OP 12 mg? Yeah. That torso. And then another. And another after that. Really opens up the tactical game, amirite?

IMO, this is a very bad change.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 27 December 2018 - 06:26 PM, said:

One of the main goals of the engine desync was to try to add a trade-off to playing a heavy mech instead of a medium, since an up-engined heavy could literally twist and turn at equal rates as a medium going similar speeds. Not saying it succeeded, but something certainly needed to be done about that. This game isn't supposed to be a linear hierarchy arm's race to the biggest robbits.

Engine desync was nothing more than a bait and switch to nerf clan mechs. It didnt help mediums lol. It just nerfed clans. If PGI really wanted to help mediums they would increase their speed so they go in between lights and heavies for speed instead of barely faster or the same speed as heavies. Thats the biggest problem with mediums, theyre not really significantly faster than heavies, so you might as well just play a heavy. PGI screwed up by allowing heavies to go way too fast compared to mediums.

Also Battletech/Mechwarrior has always had a linear progression from light to assault. Although lighter mechs were never strictly worse than heavier mechs, heavier mechs were generally better overall. PGI trying to change that progression system was always a bad idea.

The way MWLL handled it was much better (where players start in light mechs and progress to heavier mechs as the game goes on). Sadly PGI doesnt seem to recognize that MWLL is a much better game.

Trying to make lights and assaults equal can never work the way PGI has things setup. Especially since they use dropweight limits which assigns mechs a relative cost. If a 100 ton mech costs 100 tons of dropweight it needs to be three times better than a light mech that only costs 35 tons of dropweight. All dropweights do is make it extremely prohibitive to play assault mechs which defeats the purpose of trying to make lights and assaults equal.

PGI seems really confused at what they actually want... if they want lights and assaults to be equal they cant have dropweight limits. If they want dropweight limits than lights and assaults cant be equal.

Astrocanis, on 29 December 2018 - 08:18 PM, said:

Two problems that I see. We are already playing HideWarrior Online.

Hidewarrior online is a direct result of only having one life. The only way to get rid of Hidewarrior online would be to implement a ticket based respawn system with capture objectives that bleed tickets and force action.

Skirmish is the absolute worst gamemode and is responsible for virtually every problem people complain about (nascaring, deathballing, poking meta, and the majority of maps not getting used)

Edited by Khobai, 29 December 2018 - 09:33 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

I'd love to hear Chris or Paul explain how it even makes sense scientifically. If I have 6 heatsinks cooling a product, and 3 are suddenly removed, the heat they were sinking goes with them, and the product will only be affected as far as how well the 3 remaining can effectively sink all future generated heat.

The 3 sinks that peaced out don't say **** it we're out you can keep all this heat dissipating we were holding for yourselves.

Are they saying heatsinks are now like Gauss Rifles and explode when active, releasing the entirety of the heat inside the mech?

I know you read the forum Chris, feel free to make sense an in-game mechanic.

Khobai, on 29 December 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

Engine desync was nothing more than a bait and switch to nerf clan mechs. It didnt help mediums lol. It just nerfed clans.

Engine desync just made mediums more sluggish and easier to kill. My poor Griffins....

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 29 December 2018 - 09:26 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Side torso loss with LFE or C-XL is effectively now an extra bonus crit equivalent to a runaway ammo kaboom, unless the defending player is really quick on popping their 40k-cb coolshot survival tax. It used to be that you'd see maybe one overheat "suicide" per game as someone just pushed their 'Mech too far trying to get that last shot off, but now you'll see two or three in a row during tense brawls because, while an average-to-good player will have their heat level in their awareness somewhere, they're bound to be more focused on placing their own shots effectively and spreading incoming fire.

Besides which, there is already a "critical heat" alarm... which goes off well above the new "safe" heat threshold of roughly 70%. By the time you hear the alert and see the bar flash, you are already at risk of sudden overheat death. If the new mechanic is to be kept, that alarm needs to be going off starting at the heat level which would result in overheat damage in the event of side torso loss. That is a vital piece of information to have. It's a gauge that occupies a peripheral position on the HUD, during a phase of gameplay which requires that the player's attention be on the center of the screen where the shooty-bits point. If it doesn't flash or make noise, it doesn't reach the level of "needs attention now!" that a risk of instagibbing should logically be given.

Without a visible and audible warning, the current implementation of the torso loss mechanic is misleading in a way that only the very highest level players will be able to consistently take into account, which will continue to result in an elevated number of unintentional overheat deaths per game. While I'm sure there are a few people who couldn't be happier, because anything to stick it to the filthy casuals and all that, the fact is that the game will lose more of its low-to-average skilled players and a fair chunk of its average-to-good folks because of the way torso loss spike changes gameplay. Fewer players is not a good thing. Matchmaker already struggles to put together balanced teams at off-peak hours; imagine what it'll be like in six months if this mechanic stays in.

This is exactly the kind of change which ought to have been given a shakedown run on PTS before going live. Such a major nerf can't be just tossed out casually like it was without damage to the community in the long run. "Gotcha!" mechanics are bad, and this one needs to go.

[Khobai]

LT. HARDCASE, on 29 December 2018 - 09:24 PM, said:

I'd love to hear Chris or Paul explain how it even makes sense scientifically. If I have 6 heatsinks cooling a product, and 3 are suddenly removed, the heat they were sinking goes with them, and the product will only be affected as far as how well the 3 remaining can effectively sink all future generated heat.

thats not how heat works. the heat doesnt disappear just because the heatsinks were destroyed. all heatsinks do is transfer heat from the inside of the mech to the outside air. when heatsinks are destroyed the heat is still trapped in the mech and unable to be transferred to the air.

scientifically it does make sense... but people play games to escape the tyranny of realism.

As a game mechanic its just not fun. It should be reverted because it isnt fun. You dont need any other reason than that.

Edited by Khobai, 29 December 2018 - 09:37 PM.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:

Engine desync was not a bad idea, it's still a good one. PGI's implementation was bad. Instead of using the 'Mechs that can twist and move competently with their right-sized engine as the baseline, they used the bad 'Mechs which can't twist and turn with their too-small engine as the baseline. Then they nerfed Anchor Turn and Torso Twist skills when they converted them into skill nodes.

You seem to really want the old poptart gameplay back. Where everyone was piloting victors and highlanders that could fly over hills and out turn all the lighter mechs. That was the single worst period this game has ever gone through, bar none, and did more than anything else in this game's entire history to kill off player numbers.

This is supposed to be a simulator based on the western design ethos of huge slow lumbering mechs. If you want fast turning heavies that can compete in Unreal Tournament, then you can go play one of the countless Japanese mecha games like Virtual On or Armored Core or Gundam Versus or Border Break or Hawken (oh wait...)

Edited by 5th Fedcom Rat, 29 December 2018 - 09:45 PM.

[Vyx]

Khobai, on 29 December 2018 - 09:34 PM, said:

thats not how heat works. the heat doesnt disappear because the heatsinks were destroyed.

False. Cut off the hot part of a red-hot poker, and the remaining poker is cooler -- not hotter. Heat sinks store heat (as well as dissipate heat). "Detach" them from the mech, and the remaining mech loses the heat they contained.

Khobai, on 29 December 2018 - 09:34 PM, said:

And as a game mechanic its just not fun. It should be reverted because it isnt fun. You dont need any other reason than that.

We can agree it makes the game less fun.

Edited by Vyx, 29 December 2018 - 09:42 PM.

[Khobai]

Vyx, on 29 December 2018 - 09:41 PM, said:

False. Cut off the hot part of a red hot poker, and the remaining poker is cooler -- not hotter. Heat sinks store heat (as well as dissipate heat). "Detach" them from the mech, and the remaining mech loses the heat they contained.

if you cut off the hot part of a red hot poker it doesnt just disappear. the hot part is still there. its still giving off heat.

likewise if you destroy heatsinks in a mech the heat doesnt vanish. the heat is still inside the mech.

heatsinks in battletech work exactly like a car radiator. They use a liquid to store the heat and then pass that liquid through the heatsinks, which are designed to have a large amount of surface area in contact with the air, so that heat dissipates into the air.

although presumably theyre a little more sophisticated than a car radiator and probably use cryogenic cooling fluid instead of water (liquid helium cooled by liquid nitrogen so the helium doesnt turn into a gas and diffuse through the cooling lines, since helium atoms are very small and can pass right through metal in gas form).

Edited by Khobai, 29 December 2018 - 09:50 PM.