39 replies to this topic

[Curccu]

martian, on 03 October 2021 - 04:31 AM, said:

The would mean that nobody would play other variants than those hyper-quirked ones.

I remember that we have been there before: Do you remember how PGI quirked ridiculously TDR-5SS (that infamous MPL quirk). All other Thunderbolts had been forgotten, the only Thunderbolt model you met in the game was the quirked one.

And exactly "this" would happen here.

Actually there was ERPPC hyper quirked Tbolt-9S at same time which was way more OP than MPL 5SS, but it was so OP it got nerfed pretty fast.

[martian]

Curccu, on 03 October 2021 - 07:25 AM, said:

Actually there was ERPPC hyper quirked Tbolt-9S at same time which was way more OP than MPL 5SS, but it was so OP it got nerfed pretty fast.

You are right, but I think that TDR-5SS was more prevalent, because many battles eventually devolved into short range brawls, so people usually went with -5SS.

[Armored Yokai]

martian, on 03 October 2021 - 07:18 AM, said:

The entire XL survivability AND higher speed AND the option to carry 26 tons more of weapons and equipment. "That" is the difference.

and with that difference still gets overshadowed in with what I said and not too impactful despite that option of 26 more tons of weapons and equipment

Armored Yokai, on 03 October 2021 - 07:02 AM, said:

you still have to deal with hardpoints, weapon size, critical slot amount and player preference. The other variants wouldn't be ignored if you applied the balancing that was discussed and not a lot of variants come with XL and they wouldn't change a whole lot to the point where they are super mechs, you'd still have builds that would be better on an LFE or STD than you would an XL

[Nightbird]

In your opinion. For most pilots, XL is already the better choice for more mechs than STD.

[Armored Yokai]

Nightbird, on 03 October 2021 - 08:00 AM, said:

In your opinion. For most pilots, XL is already the better choice for more mechs than STD.

Wouldn't that also be their opinion? Also your own?

[Tarl Cabot]

justcallme A S H, on 03 October 2021 - 02:31 AM, said:

If you make IS XL the same as cXL you invalidate LFE.

With the current setup, true to a point. Since making that change is likely more than modifying XML, then there would need additional adjustments so that the engines would have different dissipation/agility/movement penalties.

And the tonnage difference is enough to where it would barely make up the difference of using Endo.

IS weapons, for the most part take up more space, shorter range and lesser damage. Weight saving features, Endo/Ferro, takes up 14 slots compared to Clan's 7 slots.

As for STD, it is the same for both sides with the Clans benefiting from non-engine components but they both die if the CT is destroyed. Could or should PGI "enhance" STD engines? Several IS mechs that do run with STD engines due it for a reason, ie lack of slots remaining, to free up those ST slots and/or due to having a low engine cap... Why see a heat/agility penalty when a ST is removed?

• 350 engine rating LFE 29.5t vs XL 22t for a 7.5t difference
  
• 325 engine rating LFE 25t vs XL 19t for a 6t difference
  
• 300 engine rating LFE 20.5t vs XL 15.5t for a 5t difference

Tarl Cabot, on 16 November 2020 - 06:59 PM, said:

This +1.

PGI is utilizing only a portion of the engine crit rules and heatscale. Add that for any players running an IS trial mech or purchasing trial/champion/etc IS mechs w/isXL, even with the heat bar sitting at 0% isXL is instant death w/loss of a ST, whereas for cXL and the couple of mechs w/LFE it isn't. And it would make IS Omnimechs viable instead of players targeting a ST instead of CT/cockpit or both ST/legs to kill said mech. (CT/cockpit/both legs still needed for STD too ).

• isXL 40-45% 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

And torso twisting helps, to a point, since a majority of IS mechs are in humanoid form, but for chicken walkers and those whose arms have been removed, a destroyed ST is the same as a destroyed CT for an isXL mech but it is for a cXL or LFE or STD mech. And isn't one of the reasons that a majority of mechs in MWOWC have been Clan mechs when the rules did not restrict it to IS mechs only?

And change to the isXL behavior though would help open the door for IS OMNIs introduction (I know.. wet dream ), as well as give potential boost to newcomers living a tad longer when using Trial mechs or after purchasing their first set of IS mechs w/isXL engines.

As for veterans, isXL would not benefit HGR equipped mechs, nor those whose ST is near maxed out and do not have free 3 slots a ST. And if the change were made with something like I had proposed then Clan XL would also benefit where their heatspike is much less than it is now, and considering their weapons overall produce more damage, that also comes with more heat.

[FupDup]

IS XL should never function like Clan XL.

However, an idea that someone who I can't remember the name of once proposed was for IS XL engines to gain extra health and/or armor in the side torsos so that they would be about as durable as the CT. Thus, side-coring would no longer be a shortcut compared to normal coring. Coding-wise this could theoretically be done by having the engines bestow quirks upon the user upon being equipped. Some other items like Targeting Computers kind of already do something similar so in theory we should be able to make any item give the user quirks.

This would likely entail some similar changes for LFE and STD, with CXL getting no changes (as the baseline engine).

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 03 October 2021 - 12:24 PM, said:

IS XL should never function like Clan XL.

However, an idea that someone who I can't remember the name of once proposed was for IS XL engines to gain extra health and/or armor in the side torsos so that they would be about as durable as the CT. Thus, side-coring would no longer be a shortcut compared to normal coring. Coding-wise this could theoretically be done by having the engines bestow quirks upon the user upon being equipped. Some other items like Targeting Computers kind of already do something similar so in theory we should be able to make any item give the user quirks.

This would likely entail some similar changes for LFE and STD, with CXL getting no changes (as the baseline engine).

Dude that's broken as hell. If you know how to twist and spread damage, that's effectively more damage you can absorb before dying by utilizing all three components. Like what the ****.

I don't think there could be enough changes for LFE and STD to make up for that..

[Nightbird]

Armored Yokai, on 03 October 2021 - 08:06 AM, said:

Wouldn't that also be their opinion? Also your own?

Yes, so stop stating that XL engines is a death sentence. This is only true for the lowest skilled pilots. In the middle, it breaks even between tonnage savings and survival, and for skill pilots XL is a great advantage already. There's not gonna be a buff.

[LordNothing]

lfe has become my go to engine, i only use std if i have an hgr or lb20, and i only use xl on lights. and i usually just remove upgrades if i need more space. i think there should be more reasons to go xl or std than this. i always figure the xl should come at least one of:

intrinsic mobility quirks (to enable faster torso twisting)

intrinsic armor cap buff to sts (you still need to pay for armor though, may borrow points from ct cap)

treated as armored component (manifested as higher equipment health)

a small speed tweak buff (equivalent to 1-2 nodes).

installing case prevents st death, but at a much more severe level than cxl/lfe, losing about 50-60% speed (you have to case all 3 components so you effectively lose 3 more crit slots. this also makes it optional)

+2 engine heat sink support, can run 8 extra sinks in an xl400 or run an xl200 without installing external sinks as it now has 10 (doesn't affect survivability, but offensive power instead. you have to pay for the sinks though)

the point is not to get rid of insta-death (except for the casing the engine one), but to give me more reasons to use the other options. std should also come with interesting buffs, like say, buffing zombie (ct/head) hardpoints. std buffs are even more interesting, for example providing a reason to use std on clan battlemechs.

Edited by LordNothing, 03 October 2021 - 03:50 PM.

[Armored Yokai]

Nightbird, on 03 October 2021 - 03:06 PM, said:

Yes, so stop stating that XL engines is a death sentence. This is only true for the lowest skilled pilots. In the middle, it breaks even between tonnage savings and survival, and for skill pilots XL is a great advantage already. There's not gonna be a buff.

Incorrect. I've only said it once but even then, saying how this is only true for the lowest skilled pilots is the purest form of chi-chi schlock and we aren't talking about skill level, so leave that out of this as not everyone is a comp or "skilled" player and anyways they will do more damage and get more kills, WITH or WITHOUT this buff and the change is actually not so very OP as you might think. This would be an update that affects the ENTIRE playerbase. and would essentially bring variety to the game and help XL be slightly stronger or maybe more option without being punished severely.

It's very unfortunate we don't have balance ideas being actively tested publicly in the test servers. We could always try out something and if it actually is not good then we just scrap it and move onto something else.

[The6thMessenger]

Armored Yokai, on 03 October 2021 - 04:33 PM, said:

It's very unfortunate we don't have balance ideas being actively tested publicly in the test servers. We could always try out something and if it actually is not good then we just scrap it and move onto something else.

Yep, it's really sad.

I mean honestly, the UAC rework with 0% jam but longer cooldown and higher heat that was proposed by Navid would have been sweet.

[feeWAIVER]

Someone in this thread suggested structure buffs for Standard Engines, and lesser buffs for Light Engines...
And that could be a good solution for both Clan and IS.

[Nightbird]

Armored Yokai, on 03 October 2021 - 04:33 PM, said:

Incorrect. I've only said it once but even then, saying how this is only true for the lowest skilled pilots is the purest form of chi-chi schlock and we aren't talking about skill level, so leave that out of this as not everyone is a comp or "skilled" player and anyways they will do more damage and get more kills, WITH or WITHOUT this buff and the change is actually not so very OP as you might think. This would be an update that affects the ENTIRE playerbase. and would essentially bring variety to the game and help XL be slightly stronger or maybe more option without being punished severely.

It's very unfortunate we don't have balance ideas being actively tested publicly in the test servers. We could always try out something and if it actually is not good then we just scrap it and move onto something else.

One day you'll see the logical fallacy with dismissing other's opinions as wrong in order to present your own opinion as correct...

[Armored Yokai]

Nightbird, on 03 October 2021 - 08:04 PM, said:

One day you'll see the logical fallacy with dismissing other's opinions as wrong in order to present your own opinion as correct...

That's basically a fallacy fallacy. The purpose of this post was to point out that XL needs that survivability so that more variants are viable, and doing this would pave the way for I.S omni mechs and more different builds instead of flat out punishing players for using XL. There are a lot of potentially good balance changes and this is a really good option.

Like with the new map changes that was actually really good and it changed a lot of playstyles and did a good job on stopping/ minimizing nascar and there weren't people happy about it because old habits die hard and not a lot of people like to change their playstyle.

[Nightbird]

Armored Yokai, on 03 October 2021 - 08:57 PM, said:

That's basically a fallacy fallacy. The purpose of this post was to point out that XL needs that survivability so that more variants are viable, and doing this would pave the way for I.S omni mechs and more different builds instead of flat out punishing players for using XL. There are a lot of potentially good balance changes and this is a really good option.

Like with the new map changes that was actually really good and it changed a lot of playstyles and did a good job on stopping/ minimizing nascar and there weren't people happy about it because old habits die hard and not a lot of people like to change their playstyle.

XL exchanges risk for speed and weapons. It's called a trade-off.

For HPG and Caustic, the old maps are played as short range by unskilled players, and long-range by skilled players, with a gradient in between. The new maps play as long-range across the skill spectrum. That makes it worse from a design point of view.

Any other opinions I can dismiss?

Edited by Nightbird, 03 October 2021 - 09:10 PM.

[Armored Yokai]

Nightbird, on 03 October 2021 - 09:09 PM, said:

XL exchanges risk for speed and weapons. It's called a trade-off.
Any other opinions I can dismiss?

And with that trade off we don't make it so that certain mechs get punished too much for wanting to bring more things but Instead function as their own line of variant. It's called balance.

If that is the case then you can't really argue with someone who is biased and opinionated on a topic that is actually good with the facts.

[feeWAIVER]

Nightbird, on 03 October 2021 - 09:09 PM, said:

XL exchanges risk for speed and weapons. It's called a trade-off.

For HPG and Caustic, the old maps are played as short range by unskilled players, and long-range by skilled players, with a gradient in between. The new maps play as long-range across the skill spectrum. That makes it worse from a design point of view.

Any other opinions I can dismiss?

This is all 100% correct,
but would you not a agree a better overall engine design would be to do something like-

Make XL death require both shoulders.
Give Standard Engines +30 CT structure bonus.
Give Light Engines +15
Give XL no bonus.

This could make Clan standard engines attractive, as well as make engine IS XL engines more noobie friendly.

Edited by feeWAIVER, 03 October 2021 - 09:38 PM.

[Nightbird]

feeWAIVER, on 03 October 2021 - 09:35 PM, said:

This is all 100% correct,
but would you not a agree a better overall engine design would be to do something like-

Make XL death require both shoulders.
Give Standard Engines +30 CT structure bonus.
Give Light Engines +15
Give XL no bonus.

This could make Clan standard engines attractive, as well as make engine IS XL engines more noobie friendly.

I'd be 100% OK with this but it may be too far from BT franchise that PGI will say no. For example, you can ask PPCs to be changed to be laser hit-scan (it is a lightning-gun in lore) but the MW computer game franchise has made it to be slow balls of light and that makes it a non-starter to change it.

Also, giving just 15 HP when you can save easily 10, 20 tons from XL engine would make every mech XL so it'd have to be like +XX like +100 for big engines.

[caravann]

Removes the use of light engines and is just a self promoted opinion to make your mech better than the clan mechs.

Xl engines could be revoked to be fitted into the legs and will balance stealth mechanic.

Having both xl engine and stealth would be too overpowered with no penalties of being destroyed while removing all armor and walk with the largest weapons available


Legs makes sense. The engine is bigger.