52 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

The Dev blogs have stated that killing the centrer torso, rear torso, or cockpit are the only way to kill Mechs in this game through firepower. They did not mention any caveats for the side torso for Mechs with XL engines.

I really think they should consider applying the death-by-sidetorso rules for XL engines.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 10 April 2012 - 07:36 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Alternatively it could be that XL engines are not available at launch. I still think that we will only have level 1 to start with until they get that balanced and the problems sorted and the game running. It would fit in with MVP and launching on time. Otherwise everyone will be fighting (or paying) for Level 2 from the start given it's advantages.

[Sprouticus]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 22 March 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

Alternatively it could be that XL engines are not available at launch. I still think that we will only have level 1 to start with until they get that balanced and the problems sorted and the game running. It would fit in with MVP and launching on time. Otherwise everyone will be fighting (or paying) for Level 2 from the start given it's advantages.

I think you are right re: level 1 @ start, It will make it easier to balance, etc. But I think XL engines were available in this time-frame (if rare) so we might expect them fairly soon after launch.

And if/when they are introduced, they SHOULD have side crits. The other XL thread points out that in TT you need 3 engine crit hits to disable an engine. Which is why the IS XL (3 crits in side torso) is so much more fragile than a clan (2 crits in side torso).

I cannot stress enough how important this balancing factor will be for the value of XL vs non XL mechs.

(Im assuming engines types will not be swappable with a HUGE investment for customization, or not at all)


Addendum:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Level_1 rules do not include Artillery which were commented on in the GDC interviews. So you might see some level 2 stuff, which means you might see XL engines (Im hoping not) at launch.

Edited by Sprouticus, 22 March 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think the Artillery in sarna was refering to mech mounted, which was Star League and then re-introduced later on in the time line. The GDC interview, and dev blogs etc have referred to off map artillery strikes, which have always been in BT.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Have the Developers made any statements regarding side torsos and XL engines?

[Felbombling]

There has got to be a negative for the massive bonus weight an XL engine offers, or I see roughly 99% of the community taking XL Engines once they become available... give or take 1%.

[Victor Morson]

The fact they are extra-wide is the only reason there is a trade-off for having them.

There's a valid argument, situation depending, for standard engines over XL engines. Even on TT my friends often prefer 'mechs that aren't running XL, even at the expense of stats.

[Archtus]

Yes.

Also, If I can nab an XL variant on a Raven with JJ's, I'd be happy.

[Corbon Zackery]

Its important to be as realistic to the board game as possable the I.S XL in 3049-3050 takes up slots in the right, left, and center torso. Its does suck because CASE is .05 tons and can only be put in Left or Right Torso. So if you have a ammo blow in your left or right torso you still get destroyed.

[Archtus]

Corbon Zackery, on 07 April 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Its important to be as realistic to the board game as possable the I.S XL in 3049-3050 takes up slots in the right, left, and center torso. Its does suck because CASE is .05 tons and can only be put in Left or Right Torso. So if you have a ammo blow in your left or right torso you still get destroyed.

Well, if you're storing ammo in your torso, I think you have bigger issues than the size of your engine...

[Victor Morson]

Corbon Zackery, on 07 April 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Its important to be as realistic to the board game as possable the I.S XL in 3049-3050 takes up slots in the right, left, and center torso. Its does suck because CASE is .05 tons and can only be put in Left or Right Torso. So if you have a ammo blow in your left or right torso you still get destroyed.

That's exactly why it's a serious risk/reward system. A 'mech with less punch can end up winning the day through simply being built of sterner stuff. It's why a lot of the hybrid T2s are actually superior to full T2s - you take a regular 'mech, swap it to DHS then upgrade some weapons to ER and you can end up with a really durable design. Not to say it's always preferable. I'd want an XL on my scout 'mech, for example.

There's no right answer to which is better, and I like that. I say bring on as many hard-decision mechanics as possible.

[Felbombling]

Victor Morson, on 07 April 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

There's no right answer to which is better, and I like that. I say bring on as many hard-decision mechanics as possible.

That is a great attitude to have, right there. I'd give this more likes up if I could.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with Victor, I mainly used XL's on my scouts, which were in trouble if they were brawling anyway. The othe time was often at the other end of the weight spectrum just to get an assault moving at a reasonable speed and rely on armour and firepower to survive with that extra bit of speed to help manouver. It's going to depend on how the game plays.

[canned wolf]

I think part of the issue is the way MW4 treated internal structure. In CBT because of the damage spread internal structure is a big deal. In MW4 it was rarely more than a speed bump. I would suggest beefing IS might be a good way to keep XL's viable without significantly changing the canon. I think it would be pretty cool if you start taking crits well before you're out of action that way people are forced to adapt their tactics based on damage.

[MaddMaxx]

Perhaps to kill a Xl engine based Mech there are 2 options. 2 side torsos out or the CT. Either way enough criticals have been accumulated to account for a Mech being totally out of action.

[Corsair114]

Best way to handle them would be crippling you up if you lose a side torso w/ XL engine in it, ala Clan 'mechs in TT if memory serves. A 33% to reduction in all 'mech movement speeds for each side torso gutted would be a pretty fair compromise. Making the loss of a side torso instant death when mounting an XL engine would likely be too extreme.

When I say 'mech movement, I mean all 'mech movement. Walk speed, arm look speed, torso twist speed, turning speed, the whole enchilada. Yes, this hits lighter 'mechs harder (as these values are higher, percentage wise) than assaults. Seems like it would be a fair trade for the extra armor, and weapons, and speed you'd be able to put on the fly in the little stuff (it'd make them much more likely, tonnage wise, to be able to hit the two-shot mark versus 'mechs). Also seems fair for assaults which are already large slow targets, as side torsos are *very* likely to be less armored in any given part than the CT, while generally mounting its most important weapons that aren't arm mounted. Practically speaking, I can see it being fairly popular to heavily favor front or rear armor on an assault 'mech while more evenly distributing armor values front and rear for side torsos.

[EDMW CSN]

Yes. It has it's own share of advantages, therefore it must have a disadvantage.

A Devastator player isn't going to shed tears for tearing your mech a new one with their 2x Gauss rifle and 2x PPC (assault mech or no, 50 dmg per volley is nothing to laugh at and the Devastator doesn't even overheat !!!).

I for one will not be shedding any tears either when a fluke AC-10 breaches the Devastator's rear side torso armor and caused em to get knocked out.

[Exilyth]

"Does this XL engine make me look fat?"

Well, yes, of course the advantages in weight or speed should be counteracted by being more fragile.

[Stone Profit]

Ill take the tradeoffs
Gimme an XL Engine already lol

[Victor Morson]

[EDMW]CSN, on 12 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Yes. It has it's own share of advantages, therefore it must have a disadvantage.

A Devastator player isn't going to shed tears for tearing your mech a new one with their 2x Gauss rifle and 2x PPC (assault mech or no, 50 dmg per volley is nothing to laugh at and the Devastator doesn't even overheat !!!).

I for one will not be shedding any tears either when a fluke AC-10 breaches the Devastator's rear side torso armor and caused em to get knocked out.

That's precisely why a Devastator running XL vs a partially upgraded Awesome running Standard is a great match-up. The Awesome has some disadvantages to be sure, but will still be shooting long after it's entire side has caved in. They end up being a really solid match up for each other, despite the Devastator being way more advanced.