184 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

You need XL if you want to run 3x LPL instead of 3x LL.

[Tarl Cabot]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 January 2019 - 01:15 AM, said:

You need XL if you want to run 3x LPL instead of 3x LL.

Or to put it in context, free up 6 tons for an additional 3pts of damage w/shorter duration but shorter range while attempting to maintain similar speed. 300 LFE (20.5 tons) vs 300 isXL (15.5 tons), or 300 STD (25 tons). Lower rating engines smaller difference, ie 250 rating has a 3 ton difference.

PRAISE PGI for their infinite wisdom believing isXL+ > cXL+ so isXL still dies to ST lost while cXL continues, provided now with the new changes the pilot is not riding the red line when he knows a ST has been damaged and about to drop while pushing the enemy!!! At least an isXL user is allowed to push that redline knowing with a certainty that ST that is about to drop will kill him unless he attempts to twists while seeking cover, there is no "crap, ST about to blow, where is heat? Lets try to prolong that los!!!"

/spits

The sad part is, if MWO5 does have isXL engines since the timeline runs to 3049, right before Clans (minus Wolf's Dragoons ) I am going to be pissed if they follow the same stupidity with the ST loss flag while not incorporating a more fully fleshed out heat crit system. Though I doubt it since there will be no PVP element and they will think it is something they do not need to worry about. yeah right...

Edit - But with the new change, IF and that is a BIG IF, PGI could cushion the blow by lowering both LFE and cXL heat dissipation penalty from its current 40% to 10% and 20%, respectively and setup isXL to survive that ST loss with 40% penalty (or 30%)....

/chuckles, I am only kidding myself...

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 01 January 2019 - 06:16 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

Koniving, on 31 December 2018 - 09:50 AM, said:

Videos show skill far better than stats,

When you are fighting Tier 5 players in said videos? I actually took the time to watch the video and this is the feedback I can garner from it.

1. Inability to hold a laser burn / incorrect mouse settings - The X5 you were shooting was Cherry CT and you shot 4 times and missed it.
2. Poor heat management - you shutdown 3-4 times. and enemy mechs didn't make you pay for it
3. Enemy Aim - players on opposing team were equally poor at aiming.

You were fresh HP at start of engagement & enemy cicada was some 20% less, shutdown in front and didn't die. Only at the very end when the enemy CDA shuts down for the 2nd time (you've shut down 3-4 times by then) again are you able to then finally hold a burn on the one-shot CT while chainfiring.

Is that justification that chainfiring is good or whatever? No. Absolutely nonononono.

Honestly that video isn't an awesome youtube moment. If it was me I'd be deleting the video as its a very good example of pretty much how to make every mistake possible.

If you (and anyone else) would like to see examples of a higher standard of play - Click the link in my signature and watch good players in action.

[justcallme A S H]

Tarl Cabot, on 01 January 2019 - 06:05 AM, said:

Or to put it in context, free up 6 tons for an additional 3pts of damage w/shorter duration but shorter range while attempting to maintain similar speed.

Yup - nailed it. Given the IS LPL damage nerf - IS LPL really is not worth the risk of taking XL for anymore. Hence everyone fairly quickly moved across to IS LL / ERML and LFE as opposed to IS XL and LPL+anything.

This is part of the MWO and balance chess. You touch one area it will in most cases affect another but that seems lost at times on the balance teams.

Tarl Cabot, on 31 December 2018 - 07:54 PM, said:

Why are players say they should run isXL instead of LFE, seriously? For most builds it rarely has to do with adding more weapons, hai? It is a speed increase, dropping slot restrictive Endo to free up slots for a few extra DHS. And PGI are still being ***** about normalizing the engines when damaged.

But are there any video of a mech shutting down when it was NOT riding that 100% mark?

Bows3r did some basic testing but unfortunately the twitch VOD has expired

You can be in serious pain in the right conditions though. Even firing a volley at 40%, if it adds 50% heat and mid-way through the firing you lose that torso (say a gauss sniper / ECM / light behind you etc) you can pretty much gaurantee your going to cook yourself and take the other torso off as well. So you'll shutdown OR blown up (if using override). Neither is a great outcome.

I've had it happen to me a few times while streaming and even more so in Solaris actually.

I've noticed a shift in tactics in Solaris because of this change. Which I don't really think is that great for the game either because matches end prematurely and if you are shielding/twisting well to beat a better build, you are almost gimped.

[SlippnGriff]

Koniving, on 28 December 2018 - 01:00 PM, said:

It needs to be adjusted to account for another change they did at the same time.

For the first time since January 2013, the loss of your heatsinks will affect your maximum heat threshold and cooling power for every heatsink destroyed when it is destroyed.
(Its in the same patchnotes in the same paragraph as the ST engine change).

When you lose the ST which takes away (what was it 20 to 40%?) of your base 10 in addition to losing another 5 to 9 heatsinks, the real hit isn't the loss of the base 10, but the combination of the two.

Even non-LE using mechs boating heatsinks will suffer dramatic heat changes after losing a large number of heatsinks such as a side torso, despite using a standard engine.


(Also I don't hate it, the game's finally getting to be fun again for the first time in many years. But the actual penalty needs to be adjusted to accommodate for the fact that heatsink loss matters now.)

nah dude this heat patch blows lol

[The Image]

I like the change, I like it a lot!

It adds meaning to standard engines where, darn near 95% of the time your 'obvious' choice was Clan XL or IS LFE.

The ONLY reason to equip a standard engine was to free up crit slots, as an SE had no real tactical advantage and most of the time was only there to waste tonnage and speed potential of the other engine types.

It makes absolute sense to me on the heat penalties when losing a ST with LFE or cXL. You've just lost some untold number of heat sinks, from the engine and whatever was in the ST/arm of that 'mech. Your engine is now missing two large chunks of itself and (at least per TT rules) is now at least one crit away from death and is now not capable of running as coolly or efficiently as it was prior to the damage.

Without a REAL, definitive heat affects table in game, too many of you have gotten 'lazy' about your heat. You got used to riding it at 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of max heat the whole dang match with zero consequences and now this change adds an actual consequence.

Poor you. It was never "smart/skilled" play to ride your heat capacity like that to begin with, it's just that the craptastic engine and lack of consequences made it convenient for you to do so.

Until now.

Had PGI ever implemented crit slot tracking for engines maybe this wouldn't have been necessary (no, not true we'd still lack the depth of an actual heat affects table, but whatever, right?), I mean it'd be really interesting that for ALL engines, having 3 crit slots destroyed, regardless of the torso location (2 in left torso, 1 in right torso or two in center torso, one in a side torso, et al) would cause the engine to be considered destroyed.

As it is now, we're ALL enjoying a bit of 'unnatural' engine durability, in that it requires the total destruction of 1 st on isXL, or 2 st on cXL/isLFE, or the entire CT on all engine types to destroy an engine, as opposed to just destroying 3 different crit locations.

I'd love to see that added to the game at some point (yes, yes, I know it won't ever be, PGI seems to be winding down development on MWO as much as they can get away with -- But I can still state what I'd LIKE to see all the same) if for no other reason than to be more in line with lore and make the game that much more intense.

[Tarl Cabot]

The Image, on 02 January 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

It adds meaning to standard engines where, darn near 95% of the time your 'obvious' choice was Clan XL or IS LFE.

The ONLY reason to equip a standard engine was to free up crit slots, as an SE had no real tactical advantage and most of the time was only there to waste tonnage and speed potential of the other engine types.

It makes absolute sense to me on the heat penalties when losing a ST with LFE or cXL. You've just lost some untold number of heat sinks, from the engine and whatever was in the ST/arm of that 'mech. Your engine is now missing two large chunks of itself and (at least per TT rules) is now at least one crit away from death and is now not capable of running as coolly or efficiently as it was prior to the damage.

Just FYI the engine penalties for cXL/LFE were already there, in both the number of engine heat sinks removed AND from the heat bar/scale but the heat bar/scale amount removed was taken off from the bottom instead of off the top.

I do see the potential in the change since it could open up the door to change the current heat dissipation penalty for cXL/LFE, maybe using different percentages, as well as open up the door to change isXL from its current actual death to maybe it might die if riding that heat line.

As for the using an actual heat crit system, that ship passed a long time ago, nor do I have faith that PGI would make it robust enough. As for the unnatural durability one could not point and hit the same spot with all weapons at the same time, nor will that change.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 02 January 2019 - 08:22 AM.

[The Image]

Tarl Cabot, on 02 January 2019 - 08:22 AM, said:

...

As for the using an actual heat crit system, that ship passed a long time ago, nor do I have faith that PGI would make it robust enough.

Well if the current heat system is any indication, I think PGI selected the worst possible option. I think an actual heat affects table would be far better than what we have now, but as you have already said, that ship has sailed, sunk and is lying next to the Titanic...

Quote

As for the unnatural durability one could not point and hit the same spot with all weapons at the same time, nor will that change.

I dunno, didn't the DireStar get nerfed such that it's not possible to shoot all dozen PPC's (or however TheBeef had it configured) into the same location? I'd thought I'd read/heard that somewhere... If true, I'd like the same to be implemented against the Piranha (ok let loose the hounds of Piranha discontent...).

Otherwise, the limitations of weapons hits in an FPS vs. top down TT gaming it should be obvious why it wasn't possible to implement actual "aim" in a TT game, PLUS (back to that dead horse) the lack of a heat affects table make it oh so much more viable and desirable to fire ALL the weapons ALL the time, verses, y'know some sort of actual constraint and thought being practiced for each time you fire...

In other words, the design flaws in the engine from the beginning have lead us down this meandering path of mediocrity.

I say we keep the change as is, it's the closest thing to a REAL 'consequence' we're ever going to get get when it comes to heat, alpha'ing, and making SE's actually worth a flying F-bomb...

Edited by The Image, 02 January 2019 - 08:36 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

Tarl Cabot, on 02 January 2019 - 08:22 AM, said:

Just FYI the engine penalties for cXL/LFE were already there, in both the number of engine heat sinks removed AND from the heat bar/scale but the heat bar/scale amount removed was taken off from the bottom instead of off the top.

I do see the potential in the change since it could open up the door to change the current heat dissipation penalty for cXL/LFE, maybe using different percentages, as well as open up the door to change isXL from its current actual death to maybe it might die if riding that heat line.

As for the using an actual heat crit system, that ship passed a long time ago, nor do I have faith that PGI would make it robust enough. As for the unnatural durability one could not point and hit the same spot with all weapons at the same time, nor will that change.

Exactly.

People think this is some change to cXL or LFE.

It actually isn't. This is just how it's treated in game by a new.mechanic. and a bad one at that.

How people still fail nto understand that key part is beyond me.

[K O Z A K]

Grus, on 31 December 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

Oh yeah, hows the merger with cobra going?

what merger, we're just renting their basement, and evil is sleeping on our couch

[The pessimistic optimist]

Tarl Cabot, on 01 January 2019 - 06:05 AM, said:

Or to put it in context, free up 6 tons for an additional 3pts of damage w/shorter duration but shorter range while attempting to maintain similar speed. 300 LFE (20.5 tons) vs 300 isXL (15.5 tons), or 300 STD (25 tons). Lower rating engines smaller difference, ie 250 rating has a 3 ton difference.

PRAISE PGI for their infinite wisdom believing isXL+ > cXL+ so isXL still dies to ST lost while cXL continues, provided now with the new changes the pilot is not riding the red line when he knows a ST has been damaged and about to drop while pushing the enemy!!! At least an isXL user is allowed to push that redline knowing with a certainty that ST that is about to drop will kill him unless he attempts to twists while seeking cover, there is no "crap, ST about to blow, where is heat? Lets try to prolong that los!!!"

/spits

The sad part is, if MWO5 does have isXL engines since the timeline runs to 3049, right before Clans (minus Wolf's Dragoons ) I am going to be pissed if they follow the same stupidity with the ST loss flag while not incorporating a more fully fleshed out heat crit system. Though I doubt it since there will be no PVP element and they will think it is something they do not need to worry about. yeah right...

Edit - But with the new change, IF and that is a BIG IF, PGI could cushion the blow by lowering both LFE and cXL heat dissipation penalty from its current 40% to 10% and 20%, respectively and setup isXL to survive that ST loss with 40% penalty (or 30%)....

/chuckles, I am only kidding myself...

Ummm LPL kick the crap out LL in DPS. LPL dps:2.72 LL dps: 2.14. Remember the way laser work burn time is not just how accurate your laser are but how fast they fire lower beam time mean faster firing. If you get in too close range fight at 400 meter LPL will win everytime.
https://mwo.smurfy-net.de/equipment

Edited by SirSmokes, 02 January 2019 - 11:30 AM.

[Grus]

Tarl Cabot, on 01 January 2019 - 06:05 AM, said:

Or to put it in context, free up 6 tons for an additional 3pts of damage w/shorter duration but shorter range while attempting to maintain similar speed. 300 LFE (20.5 tons) vs 300 isXL (15.5 tons), or 300 STD (25 tons). Lower rating engines smaller difference, ie 250 rating has a 3 ton difference.

PRAISE PGI for their infinite wisdom believing isXL+ > cXL+ so isXL still dies to ST lost while cXL continues, provided now with the new changes the pilot is not riding the red line when he knows a ST has been damaged and about to drop while pushing the enemy!!! At least an isXL user is allowed to push that redline knowing with a certainty that ST that is about to drop will kill him unless he attempts to twists while seeking cover, there is no "crap, ST about to blow, where is heat? Lets try to prolong that los!!!"

/spits

The sad part is, if MWO5 does have isXL engines since the timeline runs to 3049, right before Clans (minus Wolf's Dragoons ) I am going to be pissed if they follow the same stupidity with the ST loss flag while not incorporating a more fully fleshed out heat crit system. Though I doubt it since there will be no PVP element and they will think it is something they do not need to worry about. yeah right...

Edit - But with the new change, IF and that is a BIG IF, PGI could cushion the blow by lowering both LFE and cXL heat dissipation penalty from its current 40% to 10% and 20%, respectively and setup isXL to survive that ST loss with 40% penalty (or 30%)....

/chuckles, I am only kidding myself...

Basic Battletech rules state 3 crits to a eng, eng dead. Dosnt matter if its cxl, st, isxl... isxl just so happens to have 3 crits in the st's = loss of st is eng death. PERIOD.

[The Image]

Grus, on 02 January 2019 - 12:03 PM, said:

Basic Battletech rules state 3 crits to a eng, eng dead. Dosnt matter if its cxl, st, isxl... isxl just so happens to have 3 crits in the st's = loss of st is eng death. PERIOD.

This goes along with my aforementioned statement that engines are artificially more durable than they should be as you have to blow away an entire torso before they start taking damage (or in the case of isXL, dead) vs. just getting 3 crits in any one of 3 locations...

Artificially durable and unfortunately adding to the 'mediocre' feeling in game play and 'mech design...

[Jay Leon Hart]

InnerSphereNews, on 07 December 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

Heat System:

• Destroyed Heat Sinks and Clan XL / IS Light Engine side torso destruction penalties now removes total heat threshold from the top of the available heat pool rather then from the bottom.

• This will mean that instead of limiting the amount of heat your bar can be reduced to, redlining to the edge of the shutdown threshold will result in a shutdown or an overridden state if an enemy destroys Heat Sinks or damages an engine out from under you.

Heat System Design Notes: We have decided to make some back end changes to the way the heat threshold system is calculated in order to address a number of heat related display bugs that resulted in irregular heat bar behavior when components where destroyed out from under a player while they still had accumulated heat. While this change is mostly targeted to remove these heat display bugs, this will carry with it some shifts to the way that the heat system works. Especially when it comes to 'Mechs that are redlining and have their components blown out from under them. We felt this change adds a slight bit more to the risk / reward factor for those that redline their 'Mechs close to the shutdown threshold, and is most apparent when a Clan XL or Inner Sphere Light side torso destruction penalty kicks in.

Tell me again how this change to Clan XL / IS LFE penalties isn't a change to Clan XLs / IS LFEs?

I mean, unless you can suffer these Clan XL / IS LFE penalties without also using a Clan XL / IS LFE it seems blindingly obvious that it's a change to those engines...

Yes, it is a change to the loss of Heat Sinks. Yes, it is a change to how your heat bar reacts to HS or ST loss. It is still also a change to Clan XL / IS LFE behaviour.

[K O Z A K]

It clearly changed how CXL/LFE engines perform under certain conditions, whether it's a change to the engine itself or one of the underlying mechanics is utterly irrelevant

[The Image]

Jay Leon Hart, on 02 January 2019 - 12:24 PM, said:

Tell me again how this change to Clan XL / IS LFE penalties isn't a change to Clan XLs / IS LFEs?

I mean, unless you can suffer these Clan XL / IS LFE penalties without also using a Clan XL / IS LFE it seems blindingly obvious that it's a change to those engines...

Yes, it is a change to the loss of Heat Sinks. Yes, it is a change to how your heat bar reacts to HS or ST loss. It is still also a change to Clan XL / IS LFE behaviour.

Well, the way I read everything, the change isn't in the engine, it's a change to heat dissipation and heat capacity.

Yep, it primarily and spectacularly affects cXL/isLFE, but it also affects 'mechs with standard engines with ST's/ARMs full of heat sinks as well. It just doesn't affect SE's because, as mentioned in other responses, PGI didn't implement that level of critical hit tracking to the game, so a 'mech with an SE engine can suffer multiple crits to the engine without the engine ever suffering in performance, while cXL and isLFE will.

Sorry, it may "feel" like they changed the engines, they didn't.

They only changed how the heat system handles loss of portions of the engine and heat sinks.

I state again that I am very much in favor of the current changes.

It makes sense.

It adds balance/value to Standard Engines.

It adds potential consequences to continually running your 'mech at 99% of total heat capacity all the dang time.

It actually adds some "depth" to managing your 'mech.

Edited by The Image, 02 January 2019 - 12:41 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The Image, on 02 January 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

This goes along with my aforementioned statement that engines are artificially more durable than they should be as you have to blow away an entire torso before they start taking damage (or in the case of isXL, dead) vs. just getting 3 crits in any one of 3 locations...

Artificially durable and unfortunately adding to the 'mediocre' feeling in game play and 'mech design...

You don't want 'Mechs dying with all three torso components exposed but still intact. That's how you get an extra mediocre game.

[The Image]

Y E O N N E, on 02 January 2019 - 12:46 PM, said:

You don't want 'Mechs dying with all three torso components exposed but still intact. That's how you get an extra mediocre game.

I disagree.

It could be very good, but there would need to be other corresponding interface and reporting changes necessary for it to make sense, I grant you.

Taking a gyro hit that while the first one won't kill you out right, but does result in slowing you down and/or significantly higher cockpit rattle, would be interesting.

Same thing with the engine, first crit raises heat generation/slows down heat mitigation and reduces heat capacity, second crit, more of the same, plus significant speed reduction.

Or apply crit management to headshots... As far as I can tell PGI has pretty much nerfed 'criting' a cockpit, you have to destroy the entire head before you kill a pilot and get that "head shot" (unless you've stored ammo in your cockpit and RNGesus says it was hit and explodes, in which case the ultimate result is the same no matter what), but instead have potential to destroy sensors which causes your HUD to start shimmering like you're near an ECM 'mech and makes it more difficult to establish locks and gather target info. Or a hit to life support, again causing some sort of issue, dunno what, but something creative could be added.

Likewise hits to actuators causing speed issues, or loss of range/speed in being able to bring weapons to bare, so on and so forth...

Things like this add depth to game play.

Leaving them out has just left the game feeling more like Robot CoD/Quake...

Edited by The Image, 02 January 2019 - 01:05 PM.

[SFC174]

The Image, on 02 January 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

Without a REAL, definitive heat affects table in game, too many of you have gotten 'lazy' about your heat. You got used to riding it at 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of max heat the whole dang match with zero consequences and now this change adds an actual consequence.

Poor you. It was never "smart/skilled" play to ride your heat capacity like that to begin with, it's just that the craptastic engine and lack of consequences made it convenient for you to do so.

Why is it always a character like this guy making these sorts of comments? I mean if you're gonna call people lazy, not smart and not skilled, I'd hope you have some credibility to stand upon other than your opinion.

[K O Z A K]

SFC174, on 02 January 2019 - 01:01 PM, said:

Why is it always a character like this guy making these sorts of comments? I mean if you're gonna call people lazy, not smart and not skilled, I'd hope you have some credibility to stand upon other than your opinion.

because if you had credibility you wouldn't be making those kinds of statements