36 replies to this topic

[VYCanis]

TT-wise I'm sure we are all familiar with the 3 (or 2 if clan) engine crit slots that XL engines put into mech's side torsos.

The tradeoff being that you've got more weight to allocate at the cost of survivability and a bit of space.


Thats all well and good

However i have concerns with how relatively easy it is to blast out a side torso in real time, as many MWLL hollander pilots can attest to. And even if there were CoF, nothing short of cartoonishly horrible aim would really prevent people from getting in close and cutting open those side torsos like the jaws of life on a tuna can in order to bypass the thicker CT armor if a side torso destruction was an easy shortcut to a kill.

No doubt XLs should make a mech less survivable, but do we want them to be so deathtrappy no one in their right mind uses them?

What i am getting at is, what do people think would be a decent compromise between reduced survivability and using XLs being a full on deathwish?

posted some ideas in the poll, feel free to suggest your own. i may add them later to the poll

Edited by VYCanis, 04 January 2012 - 12:40 AM.

[Mason Grimm]

I'm guessing that XL engines will follow close to the tabletop rules or variations thereof.

Example #1: Each "crit hit" might reduce your engine efficiency and available speed by an order of magnitude
Example #2: Worst case? A single crit hit to an XL will disable the mech's forward movement yet power will still be available for weapons.

Speed is life with an XL engine. These tend to be in mechs that are agile, mobile and hostile but one good hit and they are hood ornaments.

[VYCanis]

well its not the individual crits that concern me so much,

its that the same 3 strikes "yer engine is kaput" rule that applies to standard engines applies to XLs as well, And with there being 3 crits in each side torso, it means that your mech can be easily killed by coring out a side torso without so much as touching the center.

Edited by VYCanis, 03 January 2012 - 07:31 PM.

[Larry Headrick]

People put xl engins to lower waight so thay can add more weapons. therefore its a trade off more firepower = weaker engine this is a balancing point.

[ManDaisy]

XL engine should really have as much disadvantage as advantage, that way nothing becomes obsolete, especially standards engines. Clan mechs should only suffer 2 hits from side torso destruction and keep functioning, because clan mechs XL engines only take 2 crits in each side torso.

[Naughtyboy]

let XL engines have the good and bads as in TT rules after all its called XL for a reason..should be bigger risks with a bigger engine when it comes to damage risks aswell as its good side of beeing more powerful then the standard engine.

[VYCanis]

I'm not saying XLs shouldn't have consequences. They should definitely be riskier to use. I'm just not sure having a side torso = dead just because you are using an XL makes for good gameplay. Considering they are often the very first thing to pop on a mech and the second easiest thing to aim for.

if XL rules transferred over to MWO verbatim, i wouldn't ever use XLs, like at all. hence my trepidation. because i lose side torsos about as easily as i lose socks

[Dlardrageth]

Will depend a lot on damage modeling/hitbox setup. With the classical TT hitbox system which makes them absurdly large in the computer game, XL engines most likely would need a tweak. With different damage modeling they probably won't at all.

[elitewolverine]

VYCanis, on 03 January 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

I'm not saying XLs shouldn't have consequences. They should definitely be riskier to use. I'm just not sure having a side torso = dead just because you are using an XL makes for good gameplay. Considering they are often the very first thing to pop on a mech and the second easiest thing to aim for.

if XL rules transferred over to MWO verbatim, i wouldn't ever use XLs, like at all. hence my trepidation. because i lose side torsos about as easily as i lose socks

sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too...

If you beef up xl's and their surviving ability you give them huge amounts of power...

Look what you can do with just a standard 40 tonner.

A designer looking for a solid 40tonner that wont blow up but has good speed for its class will be something like this:

40tons x 6movement speed = 240 series engine. 11.5 tons.

Gyro: 2tons
Cockpit: 3tons
standard structure: 4tons

Now like most people they want full armor value, max armor: 137points or 8.5tons
what does that leave you with?

11tons for weapons, heat sinks and jump jets.

Considering a ppc weighs in at 7 tons alone and would take up all your heat sinks just to fire and not move you would want 2 heat sinks (single for now).

That leaves you with one good hard hitting weapon PPC, 2 additional heatsinks and a whopping 2 tons left over..

But think about the mechs it will face. A 30tonner creeping up on you will be facing a mech that can run 9, fire and run all day with no heat buildup, and hit you for 10 points. A 30tonner can only cary 20 points front and back for protection. More than likely they will put at least 5-7 in the back leaving 13-15 for the most protected part of a battlemech its center torso. And in two shots you can rip it open and nearly lob it off. Three shots and its dead 30pts, max armor it can have is 30pts (this includes the rear).


Now you still have 2 tons left. Leaving you to decide on jump jets, or a medium laser or two or a array of quad small lasers and worry abit about heat management if you fire full volley.



Now that you can literally, core a 30tonner or even a 40 tonner in 3 shots with no advanced tech. What do you think an XL engine would do to this chassis?

Lets offer two scenarios:

Keep speed free up tons, you now have 5.5tons to work with. Not only can you add extra heat sinks but SRM's on it too...maybe a maybe quad srm2's that share 1ton of 50rnds of ammo. Great crit seaking after you opened them up with your ppc considering each missle gives a chance for a crit, 8 crit chances vs your 1 chance ppc...

or faster-11.5tons will buy me a maximum of 320xl engine, increasing my speed to 8/12. Which in this mech with max armor is deadly fast and can get out of tight spots...


Point being the reason why the xl's need to remain, should i take this out even with the chance of killing the engine with a cored out torso for that extra fire power or speed? Is because it literally changes the balance of a fight.

There have been many games where extra firepower from an xl could have won the battle or the extra speed. And there are plenty of times, my victory wishes ended on a freak crit chance within a few turns and i fired but once...

So no, you shouldnt get ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the benefits the xl's offer, AND then get added durability.

You want race tires? pay the price every 8000miles they last and the cost of 2400 for a set to get that awesome sticky grip.

Edited by elitewolverine, 03 January 2012 - 11:28 PM.

[SilentWolff]

Mason Grimm, on 03 January 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I'm guessing that XL engines will follow close to the tabletop rules or variations thereof.

Example #1: Each "crit hit" might reduce your engine efficiency and available speed by an order of magnitude
Example #2: Worst case? A single crit hit to an XL will disable the mech's forward movement yet power will still be available for weapons.

Speed is life with an XL engine. These tend to be in mechs that are agile, mobile and hostile but one good hit and they are hood ornaments.

I like these suggestions. I'd love to see a more complex damage model that previous titles and in the case of XL engines, this makes sense. I hope we see stuff like that in game.

[VYCanis]

elitewolverine, on 03 January 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

snip

durability with an XL, no, thats not what i want. Its not even my cake to eat, i hate using XLs, i prefer zombie mechs whenever possible.

however, the original "side torso destruction with an XL=dead mech rule" was balanced for a system where size and shape of a mech have no bearing at all on how difficult or easy it is to hit certain parts, "wiff factor" was high, and on average damage tended to spread itself around on a mech.

In real time 3d. certain mechs are of different sizes, with different sized hitboxes, and by nature of people's natural aiming skills, they will usually go for aiming at general center mass unless specifically trying to leg or arm an enemy.

This means that in MW games people lose side torsos a lot more often and a lot faster than they do in TT. Even when the usual go-to tactic is just core out the CT as fast as possible, and ignore all else.

Using an XL and having a side torso go poof, i think should be a major problem that affects a mech's longevity and performance severely (aside from the fact you just lost a side torso and everything in it), and much more so than had the person been using a standard. I just don't think the mech should keel over dead from just losing a side, but be more likely to do so from various potential consequences.

So that a mech with a standard engine can lose a side torso and still potentially fight on, minus whatever he lost but penalized no further.
wwere as a mech with an XL loses a side and is now running like an oven, suffering speed loss, and/or any other host of crippling problems.

[Xhaleon]

Alternatively, you can make the damage system have the XL engine's polygon model not be a part of the side torso, but indeed be sticking out into it. Shoot the side torso, and you might destroy it and the arm attached, but the engine isn't gone until you specifically hit it. Otherwise, an IS XL would still have enough engine sticking out the side to kill it from there, and destroying the side torso and the armor does make it easier to hit the engine.

Edited by Xhaleon, 04 January 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[VYCanis]

thats a good un', I LIKE IT, adding it to the poll!

[sheradin]

I am of the oppion that the added risk is a fair trade off for the extra wight

[Gunman5000]

Dlardrageth, on 03 January 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Will depend a lot on damage modeling/hitbox setup. With the classical TT hitbox system which makes them absurdly large in the computer game, XL engines most likely would need a tweak. With different damage modeling they probably won't at all.

Agreed.

I personally love the TT rules for this and I think its a fair trade off and hopefully they stick with something along the lines of what Mason said. However I also realize that real-time combat with direct control (however limited it may be based on targetting, CoF, etc etc) over where you fire instead of a dice roll to determine where you hit it becomes ridiculously easy to core some 'mechs. As Dlardrageth said, it'll depend greatly on how the handle the damage/hitbox modelling for the individual 'mechs. If they port the traditional TT one straight over like they did in many other MW games (even with the modification on the actual numbers) then there would need to be some balancing done, however if they change it up a bit while staying true to the roots it'll probably be fine.

I always liked the idea of internal components having their own Hitpoints in a real-time game as opposed to critical slots. And on top of that having to actually hit a secondary hitbox within the structure of the 'mech in order to damage said critical. There's nothing wrong with the damage and crit model for TT, but in real-time if I shoot a 'mech in the leg with a gauss rifle and bust through his armour to get a crit (according to TT rules) but I clearly saw the shot plow into the 'mech's thigh, I don't want to magically disable his foot actuator. Likewise if I punch through an XL toting 'mech high in the shoulder, but still side torso, I shouldn't be able to get an engine crit/engine damage since the engine would be lower and more center mass.

Edited by Gunman5000, 04 January 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[WerewolfX]

An idea which all of us that were TT players know about the engine hit meaning an additional +5 heat per turn. Have two things happen when your engine is hit.
1. Immediate heat spike
2. Each engine hit reduced your speed by 25%. This is damning for a reason or two in all classes.
Lights is where speed is life literally
Mediums is your rapid response to back up the other mechs a line holder (NOT THE MECH) if you will.
Heavies. Most of these guys are pretty slow to begin with, With XL's they will be faster but, so will everyone else. Dropping that speed delays the force reaction time and can mean the difference between win and loss in a base defense.
Assaults Your slow to begin with, Making you even slower limits how effective you are at holding an objective and plodding across the field to breach an enemy line or get to cover. If you track out into the open with LRM mechs on the field you get what you deserve. Also with the weapons to severely overheat your mech you could be at risk of shutting down way more often or making your mech's ammo explode.

[Dlardrageth]

There might be a slight balancing issue with your suggestion still, WerewolfX. Assume 2 Mechs, both same weight class, speed, armor, XL reactor etc., main difference being weapon loadout. Mech A is specced for energy weapons, Mech B for ballistic or missile weapons.

Now both those Mechs suffer the same hit to their XL engine. Speed reduction and heat spike would have the same effect. But... due to Mech A's energy-weapon setup, it would be way more handicapped than Mech B. By the extra heat generated each turn (or its realtime equivalent), due to energy weapons being more prone to overhetaing the Mech in general. Sure, you could argue that you can counter that by sticking more heatsinks on Mech A to start with. But that necessity alone would handicap it as well, as heatsinks might take up tonnage/slots, Mech B in comparison could use those for weapons/aymmo/whatever.

Don't you think this might create an imbalance here?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's the trade off factor you take with getting energy weapons over ballistics with all their downsides. It's a factor you need to consider if you really want that XL engine, along with - maybe I'll go for an LB 10X instead of a PPC. Alternatively take the view that if your in a fast light/medium with an XL engine you try and use that speed to get out of trouble before you loose that engine.

I would think that whatever we say PGI by this time in the game has probably already got the basic game damage model in place and would only be able to "tweak" it rather than making extensive chaanges to the standard BT model variation that they have chosen. It's one of those things that they may have in mind as an "upgrade" after launch. Particularly if gameplay shows up problems in Beta, but not severe enough to delay launch. If it takes time and money to do such a refit from stock, and none of the starting mechs have XL engines then it becomes a problem to be solved later.

[WerewolfX]

Dlardrageth, on 04 January 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

There might be a slight balancing issue with your suggestion still, WerewolfX. Assume 2 Mechs, both same weight class, speed, armor, XL reactor etc., main difference being weapon load out. Mech A is specced for energy weapons, Mech B for ballistic or missile weapons.

Now both those Mechs suffer the same hit to their XL engine. Speed reduction and heat spike would have the same effect. But... due to Mech A's energy-weapon setup, it would be way more handicapped than Mech B. By the extra heat generated each turn (or its real time equivalent), due to energy weapons being more prone to overheating the Mech in general. Sure, you could argue that you can counter that by sticking more heat sinks on Mech A to start with. But that necessity alone would handicap it as well, as heat sinks might take up tonnage/slots, Mech B in comparison could use those for weapons/ammo/whatever.

Don't you think this might create an imbalance here?

Also forgetting that Mech A pilot has more heat sinks to deal with said heat as well, Double Heat sink tech is readily available by 3049. So while yes it creates problems for an energy based mech and I do happen to agree with balance. In a way the energy pilot has to take this into account when he brings those weapons. It's all apart of the Risk vs. Reward system that makes Battletech/ Mechwarrior so appealing.
Now then getting into your player mindset.
Player A
I prefer energy weapons, No ammo minimized risk of ammo explosion, My mech is an atlas. I've dropped the AC20 in favor of a Large laser and upgraded the mediums on my arms to PPC's. Thanks to the weight saved with said engine. (weighing at 19 tons Standard with the XL at 9.5) Leave my LRM20 and remove the SRM6 to add a Large Pulse Laser. Also I'll pull out the two chest mounted Medium lasers as well upgrade them to medium pulses and add a small laser to the head. I'm gonna add 8 heat sinks to round out my configuration a bit hot but, with primarily energy weapons my mech won't explode if I had carried only ballistics. I have a single ton left over I add in a medium laser and name the Mech Shoopus. Now from a heat efficiency standpoint this is a horrid configuration. Racking up 66 heat max with an Alpha and only able to dissipate 36 of those points of heat. This player knows this and brings it to the field. He also knows how to manage his heat but, thankfully in a worst case scenario will still be able to fire the PPC's and the large from a maximum cool state garnering 6 points of heat before switching the PPC's over tot he large pulse to let his machine cool down, He also has the configuration to manage the heat from a close in standpoint with lighter mechs who close the range. If his XL takes two hits he is still able to dissipate 26 points of heat. he can fire both PPC's and no negative effects which is amazing in 3049.
Now then player B
I've got my atlas. I pull out all the weapons and add my XL engine. First thing I do is add CASE to the mech to prevent an ammo critical from killing me and divide my ammo accordingly. My unallocated tonnage with an XL engine is 54.5 tons. so I get to mount a Bushwackers worth of weapons on my mech. I start with dropping the autocannon 20 to a gauss rifle for increased range adding into that 2 tons of ammo split between the torsos. I upgrade the medium lasers on the arms to larges as even though I'm a ballistic lover I need energy based weapons for when I run out of ammo. I don't particularly care for LRM's so I add in 2 Ultra 5's with two tons of ammo each and with the remaining weight I add in 2 medium lasers and a small laser. my Max heat is 31 and my dissipation is 20 Yes the heat ratio is lower but, if my XL takes a hit it actually hurts my ballistic mech more than my energy as yes I saved on heat sinks when I have a prime mech but, when the ammo runs out I lose function to that weapon and I rely on a energy based one. That engine takes a hit or two that means I can fire my Ultra 5's and gauss with a large laser but, not much else. and when I run out of ammo or take a hit to said ammo I lose my torso and my arm losing the laser and the ammo based for that weapon and the weapon itself. So personally while my mindset is in the player B range I have just as many drawbacks as the energy based player if not more. I pay a high price in tonnage, to keep my mech running cool but, I also always have the threat of an ammo explosion.

So to summarize it balances itself out in the end once critical hits come into play.

Edited by WerewolfX, 04 January 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[VYCanis]

having engine hits rack up heat would actually, on average, be equally risky for both energy and ballistic centric builds. Each one would get screwed pretty bad.

Energy centric mechs tend to have more heatsinks anyway, allowing them to at least bleed off all the heat they are accruing, but having their combat ability hampered.

Ballistic centric mechs tend to not have that many heat sinks, so the heat spikes will affect them more, plus it risks their ammo. Their weapons would not normally add much to the heat level. But that small bit of heat won't be going away any time soon, and adds up.

Either way, both sides are affected severely and their combat efficiency reduced.