107 replies to this topic

[Axys Rageborn]

Just wanna know peoples thoughts on allowing IS Mechs to "not" insta die from the destruction of an XL side torso by having a case installed in that torso.

Currently -- IS XL - ST = Death,
Proposed -- (IS XL + CASE) - ST = same as Light engine ST loss,

If a ST has case installed it acts like a light engine and will only be destroyed if both side torsos are destroyed.

XL would only change "ST loss result in death" if a case is installed, if no case is installed the Mech is destroyed upon ST loss like it is currently.

In theory if you wanted to you could choose to only protect one side torso say like the left one of the centurion. by installing a case in the left you would survive losing that torso. However if you lost you right ST which does not have case installed it would just behave like a regular XL and your Mech will be destroyed.

Are 2 slots and 1 ton be a worthy price to pay to fight a bit longer?

Would this balance out the XL and make it a bit more even with other IS engines while at the same time giving a choice with out changing to much?

Could it have a large impact on IS mechs loadouts while using XL?

Just curious to gain a few thoughts

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

[VonBruinwald]

It would just become a 1 ton tax for most IS mechs as it becomes a necessary addition on many who upgrade from LFE->XL

I'd rather see a flat 20% chance to insta-kill for each slot the engine uses in a side torso when it's destroyed:

So for IS-XL = 60% (Chance to survive both ST destructions is 16%)
Clan-XL and IS-LFE = 40% (Chance to survive both ST destructions is 36%)
Std = 0%

It would give all mechs a chance of going zombie, making games last longer while still giving penalties to engine sizes.

The down side is LFE/Clan mechs have a chance of going pop on the first ST loss, something clan omni's can't mitigate, but on the other hand they now have (almost) the same chance of going zombie.

It also makes IS-XL Omnis plausible... it's just a shame it'll never happen.

[PhoenixFire55]

If you do that nobody would use LFE's since the difference between LFE and XL weight is usually way more than 1t, thus making an entire LFE engine family obsolete.

[Axys Rageborn]

Why leave things up to chance in a skill based game?

You can completely mitigate the insta death just by adding case. This would allow for IS omis just the same, all that needs to happen is for case to be locked into the ST just like clans case.

also you would still need LFE for big ballistics so they would still be useful. to add to this its also 8 slots (XL+case) against 4 slots for LFE. This means both would be relevant depending on how you wish to build.

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 07 February 2020 - 08:36 AM.

[CFC Conky]

Interesting idea, I wonder how it would affect current game balance.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[martian]

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 07:13 AM, said:

Just wanna know peoples thoughts on allowing IS Mechs to "not" insta die from the destruction of an XL side torso by having a case installed in that torso.
...

Do you really think that PGI is going to change their game balance so drastically and invest so much time and resources in MWO, especially considering that there is only a small number of players left?

[GoatHILL]

No.

[B0oN]

NO, IS is good as it is .

[dario03]

I think the current system is good overall since it puts a bit of variety in. If ISXL gets to survive side torso death then some other things would have to be nerfed like quirks or agility.

[justcallme A S H]

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 08:29 AM, said:

Why leave things up to chance in a skill based game?

What change?

If you have skill and torso twist and spread damage then you won't die from a insta-gib torso loss.

I run many, many IS mechs as XL. I so rarely have an issue with it that it quite simply isn't a problem... In a skill based game, skill is rewarded.

PhoenixFire55, on 07 February 2020 - 08:28 AM, said:

If you do that nobody would use LFE's since the difference between LFE and XL weight is usually way more than 1t, thus making an entire LFE engine family obsolete.

Exactly this.

Adding tonnage and slot use is total opposite of the point of IS XL.


Anyway none of this will happen. MWO is in Maintenance mode don't forget.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 07 February 2020 - 01:36 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

Change? I was referring to Vons comments about adding chance.

I agree that if you are good enough you can use XL no probs. What I was suggesting was allowing IS case to be used to allow the ability to survive XL ST insta death for the cost of one slot and 0.5 tons or two slots and 1 ton. If u are comfortable with using XL as it is now u don’t install case.

As for nerfs that wouldn’t be required as u giving up 2 slots and a ton is the price you pay. It shouldn’t make any one thing more powerful just makes mechs survive longer.

It shouldn’t be to hard to add if they chose too however I understand current times and I was more interested on people’s thoughts then anything else.

[justcallme A S H]

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 02:45 PM, said:

Change? I was referring to Vons comments about adding chance.

Ah misead.

I don't read anything Von posts as it's usually uneducated rubbish.

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 02:45 PM, said:

I agree that if you are good enough you can use XL no probs. What I was suggesting was allowing IS case to be used to allow the ability to survive XL ST insta death for the cost of one slot and 0.5 tons or two slots and 1 ton. If u are comfortable with using XL as it is now u don’t install case.

As for nerfs that wouldn’t be required as u giving up 2 slots and a ton is the price you pay. It shouldn’t make any one thing more powerful just makes mechs survive longer.

It shouldn’t be to hard to add if they chose too however I understand current times and I was more interested on people’s thoughts then anything else.

It's just a totally balance breaking change.

So no...

And it would be hard, because PGI aren't spending any Dev time on it. To control a hard set function (XL loss) via equipment installation... That isn't going to be simple.

[Axys Rageborn]

Can explain how it’s balance breaking for me. I know u know your **** about the game and I would like to understand why u think that because I feel like It wouldn’t be to big of a deal as it lessens the amount of room u have to work with.

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 07 February 2020 - 03:12 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

justcallme A S H, on 07 February 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

I don't read anything Von posts as it's usually uneducated rubbish.

I'd probably be better educated if I was permitted back-room meetings with PGI like you eSpurters... probably get a few suggestions implemented as well, just like you guys did...

[Burning2nd]

no case we die like real men

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Axys Rageborn, on 07 February 2020 - 07:13 AM, said:

Just wanna know peoples thoughts on allowing IS Mechs to "not" insta die from the destruction of an XL side torso by having a case installed in that torso.

I'm in favor "IF" the case can be destroyed.

Then it becomes more of a gamble then a no brainer.

[justcallme A S H]

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

Can explain how it’s balance breaking for me. I know u know your **** about the game and I would like to understand why u think that because I feel like It wouldn’t be to big of a deal as it lessens the amount of room u have to work with.

Well you can tell a mech is XL by a few factors.

If suddenly it's not killable via that drawback - because of equipment - that's not balanced.

There is a risk vs reward for XL. There is no risk if its protected via a 0.5T/1T item, that is totally unbalancing when LFE exists.

Humble Dexter, on 07 February 2020 - 03:32 PM, said:

I'm in favor "IF" the case can be destroyed.

Then it becomes more of a gamble then a no brainer.

You know CASE cannot be destroyed right? It;s purpose is to eject ammo to prevent the damage travelling? Making it destructable breaks the entire point of it for anyone using it to protect from ammo det.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 07 February 2020 - 03:43 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

VonBruinwald, on 07 February 2020 - 03:04 PM, said:

I'd probably be better educated if I was permitted back-room meetings with PGI like you eSpurters... probably get a few suggestions implemented as well, just like you guys did...

You continue to claim this yet it is entirely false. For the last time I will cover you making false claims and accusations on this topic.

Yes a number of top players had a meeting with Chris @ Mechcon about balance. The chat went for around 1.5hrs.

Was anything we discussed implemented?

Yes. 1 thing was. Lowering AC2 velocity as it was agreed it was actually too strong - so get that - we actually asked for a nerf.

Did anything else get implemented that was discussed?

No.

What was discussed?

• Chris isn't against high alpha of Clan as long as IS can keep up. (this contradicts the patches that nerfed Clan lasers heavily).
  
• Balance (Chris tried) for the high end as much as possible (we argued that was just incorrect).
  
• Balance is hard when there is Comp, SoloQ, GroupQ and also Solaris. Main playerbase is SoloQ/GroupQ so thats where most is given
  
• Info flow at the best of times isn't the best as Chris is contractor.
  
• Mobilty buffs will be coming to mechs (wasn't discussed which)
  
• Levelling of playing field from heat patch. It is inconclusive and not enough data yet
  
• Looking at bringing back Gauss/Peeps.
  
• AC2 nerf. Chris wants to up the heat or increase cooldown. Players strongly disagree as AC2 will become weak. Velocity nerf is the way to go.
  
• HGauss not overly viable in Comp. Chris sees it's quite useless there however it is strong in SoloQ so hard to make any adjustments there
  
• Chris wants to rework or a buff for Flamers. Players suggest there is more important things to look at than flamers.
  
• Talk about solaris and the MMR bug (Bonus for first 10 matches is broken).
  
• Players talk about LRMs, changes to the lock reticule made it harder for lower skill users to actually use them. that isn't ideal. Reward high skill yes, but that was a bit much.

There was probably couple of other things but that's the major stuff I wrote down at the time.

[VonBruinwald]

justcallme A S H, on 07 February 2020 - 03:46 PM, said:

You continue to claim this yet it is entirely false. For the last time I will cover you making false claims and accusations on this topic.

Yes a number of top players had a meeting with Chris @ Mechcon about balance. The chat went for around 1.5hrs.

Was anything we discussed implemented?

Yes. 1 thing was. Lowering AC2 velocity as it was agreed it was actually too strong - so get that - we actually asked for a nerf.

Did anything else get implemented that was discussed?

No.

There was probably couple of other things but that's the major stuff I wrote down at the time.

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.

Edited by VonBruinwald, 07 February 2020 - 04:03 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

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.