107 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

VonBruinwald, on 07 February 2020 - 03:54 PM, said:

You forgot about the Executioner's mobility buff....

You may think I'm making false claims but this meeting clearly happened. I just spin theories on it due to the undocumented nature.

I do appreciate you finally giving some transparency, I don't think you understand that post is the most we've heard about what happened in a single statement. You may think it inconsequential because you were there, but the wider player-base weren't.

I don't recall EXE being discussed. The mobility conversation didn't talk about specific mechs/buffs, just that they were coming. A larger discussion

I'm sure I've posted about it before.

I know I've discussed it a numerous times times on my streams, various discords etc. It was fully transparent.

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 03:55 PM, said:

Wouldn’t LFE still be needed for big ballistics? Also it would leave more space for other equipment ie dhs and ammo ect. I just don’t understand how u can say it completely undermines the LFE as it still has a role in a lot of builds.

Also take your personal bs else where as I was asking for thoughts not for you guys to have a virtual fight. There’s is plenty of that crap on other threads go there and sort ur **** out.

HGauss for one needs STD engine.

Remember big ballistics have been around since MWO was launched. LFEs were not... What did people do with them prior? STD works just fine. And in a number of assaults you need a STD and then you can now use LFF armour which netts enough tonnage to offset.

[Axys Rageborn]

and those builds wont be affected as you cant have an XL and Hguass in a ST at the same time. nor will using LFE and AC20 in a ST torso those builds are still relevant.

All I'm suggesting is by adding the ability use extra slots and weight via case installed with an XL you can survive a single ST loss. This would bring it inline with the clan XL but still be risk reward as you will have to give up slots and tonnage that could be used for weapons just to be able to survive a bit longer.

take the following 3 builds of the Hunchback - 4H

one with LFE (AC10 + 5ML)

https://mech.nav-alp...edd8ab25_HBK-4H

now one with the XL + case (LBX10 + 5ML)

https://mech.nav-alp...5dba9864_HBK-4H

And now just standard XL (AC10 + 5ML)

https://mech.nav-alp...9b2e439a_HBK-4H

are any of these three builds unbalanced? would one out perform the other so much that it would be pointless to take any thing else?

the way LFE works now with ST loss causing the mech to have reduced effectiveness could be done for the XL + case but just increase the reduction a little bit more for XL ST loss. This would then have an increased effect on losing a ST while using XL+case. That still gives risk/reward

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 07 February 2020 - 04:48 PM.

[RickySpanish]

OP I think it would make LFE obsolete, I find them to be a little awkward already to be honest but they do have a niche. Such an "easy" fix for XL engines would just entirely remove the need for them. But maybe we could meet half way, what if CASE prevented individual ammo slots from exploding and dealing damage to any other component, or at least from hitting the engine?

[Axys Rageborn]

Also take one of my favourite builds for the BJ-2

https://mech.nav-alp.../#32ff4dfe_BJ-2

I cannot run an XL+case and still have a build like this. I would have to lower the size of the MRM launchers to gain the benefits of what I am proposing.

[Prototelis]

IS-XL p.much fine.


What they should do is re-enable engine sync for IS-XL. Then you'd see more heavies and chonky mediums with them because the extra twisties makes it more viable.

[Axys Rageborn]

I was playing around with this build for the ANH-1A and I can see what you mean about it making LFE obsolete (kinda)

ANH-1A LFE
https://mech.nav-alp...fb072a1f_ANH-1A

ANH-1A XL+case
https://mech.nav-alp...ef3257df_ANH-1A

the only difference is where I was able to put the ammo, which had to be in the arms of the XL unlike the LFE which could have it in the torso.

Would you choose the XL one over the LFE in this case? even if that meant forking out around an extra million Cbills to use XL?

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 07 February 2020 - 05:21 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 04:58 PM, said:

Also take one of my favourite builds for the BJ-2

https://mech.nav-alp.../#32ff4dfe_BJ-2

I cannot run an XL+case and still have a build like this. I would have to lower the size of the MRM launchers to gain the benefits of what I am proposing.

But why?

LFE does the same thing if you have to lower the MRM BJ-2

This is why it makes no sense. For anything you would put XL/Case in, you can just LFE it. That still doesn't address the balance factor as then there is no risk for XL. When LFE exists, there needs to be a draw back.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 07 February 2020 - 05:22 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

justcallme A S H, on 07 February 2020 - 05:21 PM, said:

But why?

LFE does the same thing if you have to lower the MRM BJ-2

This is why it makes no sense. For anything you would put XL/Case in, you can just LFE it. That still doesn't address the balance factor as then there is no risk for XL. When LFE exists, there needs to be a draw back.

Exactly - therefore LFE is still useful and won't be replaced. And the draw back is if you lose a ST while have case+XL then you would suffer harsher penalties the a LFE that has lost a ST. You just don't insta Die which brings it inline with the clan XLs

[justcallme A S H]

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 04:48 PM, said:

and those builds wont be affected as you cant have an XL and Hguass in a ST at the same time. nor will using LFE and AC20 in a ST torso those builds are still relevant.

All I'm suggesting is by adding the ability use extra slots and weight via case installed with an XL you can survive a single ST loss. This would bring it inline with the clan XL but still be risk reward as you will have to give up slots and tonnage that could be used for weapons just to be able to survive a bit longer.

take the following 3 builds of the Hunchback - 4H

one with LFE (AC10 + 5ML)

https://mech.nav-alp...edd8ab25_HBK-4H

now one with the XL + case (LBX10 + 5ML)

https://mech.nav-alp...5dba9864_HBK-4H

And now just standard XL (AC10 + 5ML)

https://mech.nav-alp...9b2e439a_HBK-4H

are any of these three builds unbalanced? would one out perform the other so much that it would be pointless to take any thing else?

the way LFE works now with ST loss causing the mech to have reduced effectiveness could be done for the XL + case but just increase the reduction a little bit more for XL ST loss. This would then have an increased effect on losing a ST while using XL+case. That still gives risk/reward

All you are doing is taking out the TC1 for an entire baseline mechanic change. That is not how MWO should ever be balanced, ever. It is not the builds that are unbalanced, it is the mechanic. That's the core issue.

If you build the LFE one the same: HBK-4H

The LFE build for all intents and purposes is identical. A tad slower, that's it. There is NO point to run a XL in that build. CASE or no CASE.

LFE is not as tonnage efficient and generally means to pack the same guns/DHS you need to run slower. You have to compromise usually. It does that, but realistically 1.5km/h is insignificant.

If you suddenly mean there is no compromise for IS XL, whats the pointof LFE? Again - breaking the baseline mechanics alters the balance in the game and in this instance that isn't a good path to head down.
HBK-4H

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 05:34 PM, said:

Exactly - therefore LFE is still useful and won't be replaced. And the draw back is if you lose a ST while have case+XL then you would suffer harsher penalties the a LFE that has lost a ST. You just don't insta Die which brings it inline with the clan XLs

Harsher penalties?

You can't get much worse than taking a torso off in LFE. The heat and speed penality is already severe. Making it even worse would mean there is ZERO point to even keeping a torso in a XL toros-loss because you're forever heatcapped

Edited by justcallme A S H, 08 February 2020 - 10:49 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

justcallme A S H, on 07 February 2020 - 05:39 PM, said:

All you are doing is taking out the TC1 for an entire baseline mechanic change. That is not how MWO should ever be balanced, ever. It is not the builds that are unbalanced, it is the mechanic. That's the core issue.

If you build the LFE one the same: HBK-4H

The LFE build for all intents and purposes is identical. A tad slower, that's it. There is NO point to run a XL in that build. CASE or no CASE.

LFE is not as tonnage efficient and generally means to pack the same guns/DHS you need to run slower. You have to compromise usually. It does that, but realistically 1.5km/h is insignificant.

If you suddenly mean there is no compromise for IS XL, whats the pointof LFE? Again - breaking the baseline mechanics alters the balance in the game and in this instance that isn't a good path to head down.
[l=https://mech.nav-alpha.com/#3fcc4d13_HBK-4H]HBK-4H[/url]



Harsher penalties?

You can't get much worse than taking a torso off in LFE. The heat and speed penality is already severe. Making it even worse would mean there is ZERO point to even keeping a torso in a XL toros-loss because you're forever heatcapped

But you would be alive and could effect the outcome of a match right?

the TC was just in there to keep all the equipment similar just for those builds but of course you could remove it and put in a bigger engine. Thats what makes the mech lab great.

It was said that LFE would become obsolete yet you show me that it wouldn't even if case+XL was a thing. Mechanics can change too they are not set in stone

All this does if give another option which allows for more build diversity and may bring up poor mechs with poor geometry that would be suicide to take just a regular XL normally.

As for the penalty it was just a suggestion but if its not needed then it could be just like the LFE.

So yes its its not perfect but could have its uses.

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 07 February 2020 - 06:13 PM.

[Ignatius Audene]

RickySpanish, on 07 February 2020 - 04:57 PM, said:

OP I think it would make LFE obsolete, I find them to be a little awkward already to be honest but they do have a niche. Such an "easy" fix for XL engines would just entirely remove the need for them. But maybe we could meet half way, what if CASE prevented individual ammo slots from exploding and dealing damage to any other component, or at least from hitting the engine?

U realise that engine crit is a tt thing and never made it's way in the game?

[Prototelis]

Engine critting as a random chance event never made it in the game; it would be cancer if it did.

Engine critting as in losing heat cap, speed, dissipation, and in the case of XL resulting in immediate death absolutely are in the game.

[Dionnsai]

IS XL is fine as is. Anyone who watches me knows I run XL on many IS Mechs and do just fine, you get to go stupid fast in a high-loadout mech that has no business going that fast, what's not to love. Build smart, poke well, win your trades, not a problem.

Don't overlook the fact that a great number of clan XL engines are locked and can't be adjusted. You can't make a 100kph hellbringer or ebon jag for example.

I would be more in support of having Clan mechs which are not engine locked get the IS XL behavior. Having a Vapor Eagle explode to side torso loss might make it feel less O.P.

Edited by Dionnsai, 08 February 2020 - 06:30 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

For the few who weren't around when PGI changed how the heat cap/heat bar is being calculated, as well as the dissipation rate then followed by how the loss of heat capacity from the heat bar was changed to being removed from the top instead of from the bottom.

And fyi when the new Skill Tree went live Chris had posted that bringing the isXL inline with the cXL/LFE, which never happened. When ask later, the "bandwidth" was not there. Now that MWO is in "maintenance mode" anything major being done has evaporated.

Dropping this off here.

Tarl Cabot, on 12 March 2019 - 09:44 PM, said:

Up to a point, it really doesn't balance the one to the other two since XL is an instant death when 1st ST is lost, regardless if tthe pilot is sitting at 0% or 100%. It does allow the argument that as long as the capacity is being removed from the top, to bring XL into the folder of the cXL/LFE by removing the instant death penalty while setting the XL with the current heat penalty and a slightly higher movement penalty, reduce the cXL to the middle of the road and the LFE to below the cXL.

Add a 3rd field. PGI has shown it can separate capacity and dissipation rate, while not do the same when 1st ST is lost?

• isXL 40% Engine loss heat capacity / x% loss heat dissipation / 25% movement
  
• cXL 25-30% Engine loss heat capacity/ x% loss heat dissipation / 20% movement
  
• LFE 15-20% Engine loss heat capacity/ x% loss heat dissipation / 15% movement

Tarl Cabot, on 13 March 2019 - 07:54 PM, said:

PGI could simply reduce the settings for the cXL and LFE and not even touch the isXL.. Right now we do not know that is up PGI *** about the isXL except "lore" in a game that does not use actual engine crit system, nor do I have faith in PGI doing well by it.

isXL does occur 12 slots and loses 3 slots w/ST loss or 25% of the engine, whereas in BT, with 3 engine crit/death, a STD would lose 3 out of 6 slots or 50% before it shuts down.

And if PGI "bandwidth" allowed it I do not believe PGI would make the isXL better than the cXL, not in MWO where there is no "mixed" tech.

isXL 3/12 or 25% shielding lost / 50% weight savings vs STD
cXL 2/10 or 20% shielding lost / 50% weight savings vs STD
LFE 2/10 or 20% shielding lost / 25% weight savings vs STD

(shrugs) It would allow IS Omnis to come in without being DOA, reduce confusion for the non-BT purists who come in from MW5 to MWO, going from Clan to IS, etc etc. Considering how "quickly" PGI has on turn around, IS trial mechs are dead with loss of one ST since they are equipped with isXL. Lets now forget that, imho, if.... PGI ever gets anything going for FP, to actually breathing some life into it, it certainly not hurt by having all engines not being a death trap w/ST loss.

Edit.. and why do I attempt to campaign it ? No one really does, it makes sense to use BT flavor without having it exact in this type of environment while also looking how it can affect different aspects of the game, now and tomorrow.

Want to buy a mechpack?

[The pessimistic optimist]

IS XL should only be taken of very specific builds that befits more for the extra tonnage or IS light mechs.

[thievingmagpi]

XL everything that isn't an Atlas.

Laugh at your enemies.

[justcallme A S H]

SirSmokes, on 08 February 2020 - 05:56 PM, said:

IS XL should only be taken of very specific builds that befits more for the extra tonnage or IS light mechs.

cmon... I have lots and LOTS of IS XL builds.

Specific? lol, nah.

When you think since Skill Maze the game has slowed down heaps. Clan no longer runs @ 87.5km/h. So putting a XL in a IS heavy actually almost matches their speed @ ~75km/h. It can be VERY strong now given the IS quirks if you play correctly.

I mean for QP/FP of course. Comp - forget it.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Yea lets not and say we did no

[Prototelis]

"3d chess"

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 12 February 2020 - 01:20 PM, said:

"3d chess"

You mean 3D-Nascar.... right?