337 replies to this topic

[Apnu]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 April 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You are the troll in this thread sir, not me.

Go read most of the posts in the last few pages.

You are in our house.

Go make your own thread to white knight.

Your house? Yawn.

[I am]

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Apnu, on 09 April 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Your house? Yawn.

"OUR".

FFS.

[Apnu]

I am, on 09 April 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

LOL!

[MustrumRidcully]

Rebas Kradd, on 09 April 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

For all the complaining about balance, I rarely see any opinions about what people think a truly "balanced" game would look like.

I made such posts, and others did, too, particularly during the Closed Beta.

But we know from experience they don't do much - you won't even get a comment like "nice idea, but it wouldn't work, because [insert some details]". We now know from the last Ask the Devs that it's just about "trends", not about specific suggestions. So it's actually irrelevant to go into details like that.

Balancing games isn't easy, but balancing a Battletech game is probably on the easier side from the games out there. We don't have strong crowd control effects or debuffs, buffs, heals and what not. It's mostly about dealing damage, and the most complex part is the information warfare component - trying to figure out how valuable removing IFF is, or how good Thermal Vision is, for example. (But it happens to be independent in large parts from the weapon balance.)

[MustrumRidcully]

Teralitha, on 09 April 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Heat is the reason why those weapons are useless. Heat effeciancy is far too good.

Makes flamers useless in that they cant cause a mech to overheat anymore.
Makes MG useless because good HE allows you to carry bigger weapons so why bother with MG
Makes LBX useless because good HE allows you to carry more energy weapons for more damage better range for the same tonage of the weapon and ammo so LBX is pointless.

This has nothing to do with heat efficiency.

- There was a point before I joined the Closed Beta where FLamers were useful and apparantly even OP. They got nerfed then, and have been underpowered since then. Their biggest problem is that they don't add to your heat like you'd expect - they just set a ground level of your heat and you will build up more heat then you give the enemy. I personally think Flamers are a bad idea probably anyway, because if they can be used to shut down enemy mechs - guess what's gonna happen. People heat-locking enemy mechs by liberal application of Flamers. So any buff for the FLamer - I suggest just making the damage worth the weight and the heat lower.

Very few ballistics were ever limited by heat as much as energy weapons. Even when we had single heat sinks, Machine Guns were useless.

LB10X AC are bad because they deal the same damage as the AC/10 (already not a good weapon), but they spread it around and you cannot even benefit from their range due to the shotgun effect. LBX would be instantly good (and beat the AC/10) if it fired solid slugs.

And heat efficiency in general isn'T good in MW:O. It's terrible. Mechs heat up way too fast, the only thing that saves mechs firepower is that the heat capacity is high. Heat dissipation should be about twice as large as it is now, and the heat capacity only half or one third as high as it is.

[Sybreed]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I made such posts, and others did, too, particularly during the Closed Beta.

But we know from experience they don't do much - you won't even get a comment like "nice idea, but it wouldn't work, because [insert some details]". We now know from the last Ask the Devs that it's just about "trends", not about specific suggestions. So it's actually irrelevant to go into details like that.

Balancing games isn't easy, but balancing a Battletech game is probably on the easier side from the games out there. We don't have strong crowd control effects or debuffs, buffs, heals and what not. It's mostly about dealing damage, and the most complex part is the information warfare component - trying to figure out how valuable removing IFF is, or how good Thermal Vision is, for example. (But it happens to be independent in large parts from the weapon balance.)

Agreed

You know, I wish we could tweak weapon values in testing grounds so we could actually test different scenarios... imagine how amazing it would be.

Then again... I doubt PGI would ever take these into consideration.

[Hawkwings]

PGI knows best.

Everything is perfectly under control.

Sit down and eat your soup quietly.

There are no American infidels in Baghdad.

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

The object of power is power.

Now you begin to understand me PGI.

[Garth Erlam]

Zaptruder, on 09 April 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

I like you Garth. You do a good job in a tough job. But it's plain to see that you're not fully informed or fully able to speak of the thought that goes into balance decision making process. Good is good. But great is better. Why aim for 50%, when you can aim for full viability?

"There's a bunch of changes in testing, but it takes awhile."

Quote

"Yes they are, we are going to change them again."

"We are going to change them again."

[I am]

How bout that player counter?

[MustrumRidcully]

tenderloving, on 09 April 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Doesn't the CS community self-police to some extent to deal with imbalances? I'm not sure that's the gold standard you want.

They need to look at League of Legends, where devs are constantly tweaking and will even disable champions when issues crop up. If something with the risk/reward profile of the current ECM was implemented on a champion in LoL, it would be hotfixed out or removed in the next patch.

There is actually a philosophy regarding "Game Design Anti-Patterns" which are things that they strive to avoid:

http://na.leagueofle...ad.php?t=293417

ECM's current implementation falls under a couple of these (which I'm not going to explain):
Power Without Gameplay
Burden of Knowledge

Even if you don't agree with the decisions that Riot makes, they can always point back to one of these, and they are relatively consistent. (My post history on this forum can show you how critical I am and I am usually satisfied with Riot's explanations.)

This is wonderful material. Every game designer should read it.

Quote

I've been asked a few times, "Why don't you do stuff like Rupture (from DOTA Bloodseeker) in LoL?"

I usually respond -- Rupture contains several basic design 'anti-patterns'. I thought I'd post for the benefit of those who are interested what strong anti-patterns I am aware of.

So... Here are a few that come to mind.... Note that you can find an example of each of these somewhere in our game at some intensity level. Sometimes this is just bad design. Sometimes this is because we got something else in exchange. Design is an optimization -- but these anti-patterns are of negative design value, so you should only do them if you get something good in return.

To be clear, LoL has a number of abilities that use these anti-patterns. Sometimes it's because we got something good in return. Sometimes it's because we made design errors. However, we generally avoid them nonetheless, and certainly use them a lot less than other games in our genre.

Note: All WoW examples refer to original and BC WoW, not cataclsym.

Power Without Gameplay
This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don't find satisfying or don't notice. The classic example of this is team benefit Auras. In general, other players don't value the aura you give them very much, and you don't value it much either -- even though auras can win games. As a REALLY general example, I would say that players value a +50 armor aura only about twice as much as a +10 armor aura... Even though +50 is 5x better. Another example would be comparing a +10 damage aura to a skill that every 10 seconds gives flaming weapons that make +30 damage to all teammates next attack (with fire and explosions!). I am pretty sure that most players are WAY more excited about the fiery weapons buff, even though the strength is lower overall.

The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. As a result, we tend to keep Auras weak, and/or avoid them altogether, and/or pair them on an active/passive where the active is very strong and satisfying, so that the passive is more strategic around character choice. For example, Sona's auras are all quite weak -- because at weak values they ARE appreciated properly.

Burden of Knowledge
This is a VERY common pattern amongst hardcore novice game designers. This pattern is when you do a complex mechanic that creates gameplay -- ONLY IF the victim understands what is going on. Rupture is a great example -- with Rupture in DOTA, you receive a DOT that triggers if you, the victim, choose to move. However, you have no way of knowing this is happening unless someone tells you or unless you read up on it online... So the initial response is extreme frustration. We believe that giving the victim counter gameplay is VERY fun -- but that we should not place a 'burden of knowledge' on them figuring out what that gameplay might be. That's why we like Dark Binding and Black Shield (both of which have bait and/or 'dodge' counter gameplay that is VERY obvious), but not Rupture, which is not obvious.

In a sense, ALL abilities have some burden of knowledge, but some have _a lot more_ -- the ones that force the opponent to know about a specific interaction to 'enjoy' the gameplay have it worst.

Good particle work and sound -- good 'salesmanship' -- will reduce burden of knowledge (but not eliminate it). We still would not do Rupture as is in LoL ever, but I would say that the HON version of Rupture, with it's really distinct sound effect when you move, greatly reduces the burden of knowledge on it.

In summary, all mechanics have some burden of knowledge, and as game designers, we seek to design skills in a way that gives us a lot of gameplay, for not too much burden of knowledge. If we get a lot more gameplay from something, we are willing to take on more burden of knowledge -- but for a given mechanic, we want to have as little burden of knowledge as possible.

Unclear Optimization
This is a more subtle one. when players KNOW they've used a spell optimally, they feel really good. An example is disintegrate on Annie. When you kill a target and get the mana back, you know that you used it optimally, and this makes the game more fun. On the other hand, some mechanics are so convoluted, or have so many contrary effects, that it is not possible to 'off the cuff' analyze if you played optimally, so you tend not to be satisfied. A good example of this is Proudmoore's ult in DOTA where he drops a ship. The ship hits the target a bit in the future, dealing a bunch of damage and some stun to enemies. Allies on the other hand get damage resistance and bonus move speed, but damage mitigated comes up later. Very complicated! And almost impossible to know if you have used it optimally -- do you really want your squishies getting into the AOE? Maybe! Maybe not... It's really hard to know that you've used this skill optimally and feel that you made a 'clutch' play, because it's so hard to tell, and there are so many considerations you have to make. On the other hand, with Ashe's skill shot, if you hit the guy who was weak and running, you know you did it right... You also know you did it right if you slowed their entire team... Ditto on Ezreal's skill shot.

Use Pattern Mis-matches Surrounding Gameplay
I won't go into too much detail on this, but the simple example is giving a melee DPS ability to a ranged DPS character -- the use pattern on that is to force move to melee, then use. This does not feel good, and should be avoided. I'm sure you are all thinking -- but WoW mages are ranged, and they have all these melee abilities! Well... Frost Nova is an escape, and the various AEs are fit around a _comprehensive_ different mage playstyle that no longer is truly 'ranged' and is mechanically supported across the board by Blizzard -- so the rules don't apply there ;p

Fun Fails to Exceed Anti-Fun
Anti-fun is the negative experience your opponents feel when you do something that prevents them from 'playing their game' or doing activities they consider fun. While everything useful you can do as a player is likely to cause SOME anti-fun in your opponents, it only becomes a design issue when the 'anti-fun' created on your use of a mechanic is greater than your fun in using the mechanic. Dark Binding is VERY favorable on this measurement, because opponents get clutch dodges just like you get clutch hits, so it might actually create fun on both sides, instead of fun on one and weak anti-fun on another. On the other hand, a strong mana burn is NOT desirable -- if you drain someone to 0 you feel kinda good, and they feel TERRIBLE -- so the anti-fun is exceeded by the fun. This is important because the goal of the game is for players to have fun, so designers should seek abilities that result in a net increase of fun in the game. Basic design theory, yes?

Conflicted Purpose
This one is not a super strong anti-pattern, but sometimes it's there. A good example of this would be a 500 damage nuke that slows enemy attack speed by 50% for 10 seconds (as opposed to say, 20%), on a 20 second cooldown. At 50%, this is a strong combat initiation disable... but at 500 damage it's a great finisher on someone who is running... but you also want to use it early to get the disable -- even though you won't have it avail by the end of combat usually to finish. This makes players queasy about using the ability much like in the optimization case, but it's a slightly different problem. If the ability exists for too many different purposes on an explicit basis, it becomes confusing. this is different from something like blink which can be used for many purposes, but has a clear basic purpose -- in that place, players tend to just feel creative instead.

Anti-Combo
This one is bad. This is essentially when one ability you have diminishes the effectiveness of another in a frustrating manner. Some examples:
- Giving a character a 'break-on-damage' CC with a DOT (yes, warlocks have this, but they tuned it to make it not anti-combo much at all)
- With Warriors in WoW -- they need to get rage by taking damage so that they can use abilities and gain threat -- but parry and dodge, which are key to staying alive, make them lose out on critical early fight rage. So, by gearing as a better tank, you become a worse tank in another dimension -- anti combo!
- With old warrior talent trees in WoW, revenge would give you a stun -- but stunned enemies cannot hit you and cause rage gain... So this talent actually reduced your tanking capability a lot in some sense! Anti-combo!

False Choice -- Deceptive Wrong Choice
This is when you present the player with one or more choices that appear to be valid, but one of the choices is just flat wrong. An example of this is an ability we had in early stages recently. It was a wall like Karthus' wall, but if you ran into it, it did damage to you, and then knocked you towards the caster. In almost every case, this is a false choice -- because you just shoudln't go there ever. If it was possible for the character to do a knockback to send you into the wall, it wouldn't be as bad. Anyhow, there's no reason to give players a choice that is just plain bad -- the Tomb of Horrors (original module) is defined by false choices -- like the room with three treasure chests, all of which have no treasure and lethal traps.

False Choice -- Ineffective Choice
Similar to above, except when you give what appears to be an interesting choice that is then completely unrewarding, or ineffective at the promised action. An older version of Swain's lazer bird had this failing... Because the slow was so large, you could never run away in time to de-leash and break the spell and reduce damage, and in cases you did, you'd just dodge 20% of the damage at a big cost of movement and DPS -- so running was just an ineffective choice.

Or We Could **** the Player!!1111oneoneone
This is where you straight up screw over the player, usually with dramatic flair, or maybe just try to make the player feel crappy in a way that isn't contributing to the fun of the game. These range in severity, but examples usually are spawned because the designer is a pretentious ****** who likes to show what a smart dude he is and how stupid the player is. I do not respect designers who engage in this pattern intentionally, and encourage any design lead out there to immediately fire any of your staff that does. I do understand that it can happen inadvertently, and that you might cause some of this stress on purpose in an RPG for character development.. And of course, I love you WoW team despite the 'playing vs' experience of Rogue and Warlock, as you DO have the best classes of any MMO, and they look even better in Cataclysm.... But, on Bayonetta, did the developers really think the stone award was a good idea? But I digress...

Very Severe: The original tomb of horrors D&D module is the worst in existence. Good examples are the orb of annihilation that doesnt look like one and instakills you and all your gear if you touch it, and the three treasure chests where each has no loot and deadly traps and no clues that this is the case.

Severe: There's a popular wc3 map in China where you enter a bonus round, and have a 2% chance of just straight up dying rather than getting cool loot.

Situationally Moderate:Horrify + fear kiting from a competent warlock who outgears you in WoW. Guess what? You die before getting to react, while watching it in slow motion!

Mild: Stone award in Bayonetta. So... you barely get through the level for the first time, then get laughed at by the game with a lame statue of the comic relief character, and a mocking laugh. Please -- maybe a bronze award and a 500 pt bonus might be more appropriate? The player might have worked VERY hard to get through the level, espec on normal and higher difficulties.

Non-Reliability
Skills are tools. Players count on them to do a job. When a skill is highly unreliable, we have to overpower it to make it 'satisfying enough'. Let me give you an example: Let's say Kayle's targeted invulnerability ult had a 95% chance of working, and a 5% chance of doing nothing when cast. We'd have to make it a LOT stronger to make it 'good enough' because you could not rely upon it... and it would be a lot less fun. Random abilities have this problem on reliability -- they tend to be a lot less satisfying, so you have to overpower them a lot more. Small amounts of randomness can add excitement and drama, but it has a lot of downsides. There are other examples of non-reliability, but randomness is the most obvious one. Abilities that require peculiar situations to do their jobs tend to run into the same problems, such as Tryndamere's shout that only slows when targets are facing away from him.

[Garth Erlam]

Quote

I am willing to live with an overpowered LBX until you can get it rebalanced.

The hundreds of thousands of other players, though, aren't.

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

And heat efficiency in general isn'T good in MW:O. It's terrible. Mechs heat up way too fast, the only thing that saves mechs firepower is that the heat capacity is high. Heat dissipation should be about twice as large as it is now, and the heat capacity only half or one third as high as it is.

Is your goal to nerf the 6 second alpha-strike battles?

If everyone had twice as much heat dissipation then wouldn't that effectively buff all mechs with a lot of energy hard-points? Would it not also cause people to equip ERPPCs or a bunch of MLs where many use more heat-efficient weapons right now? AC2 would certainly be more viable as a primary weapon.

I don't really understand how you think the game should change if your idea was implemented. I can imagine those mechs that boat 8 or 9 MLs becoming very, very deadly. Not sure I like that idea.

[Shumabot]

Garth Erlam, on 09 April 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

I don't hate my job at all

So, in terms of weapon balance, I tend to look at it like this:

CS 1.6: 24 weapons, 4 used competitively.
MWO: 26 weapons, at least 12 used competitively.

We're doing pretty damn good, less than 1.5 years from FLoC, if that's where we are now. I can build an energy boat, ballistic boat, or missile boat, and compete. Sure it ebbs and flows, but I'm damn proud of where are are in terms of weapon balance. There's a bunch of changes in testing, but it takes awhile.

And were we to just arbitrarily release something without properly testing it, you know..

Counterstrike is about as far from a game with reasonable competitive variety as they come. It's also a dead competitive scene. Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to "compete" with a missile boat in the current environment, but that's a pass since you've said you're finalizing actual updates to missiles.

I think people are just questioning the fact that you have a lot of weapons that could be fixed with small nudges to either heat or damage, but you seem unwilling or unable to do so. You let the systems languish while variety suffers and you don't even acknowledge the issues or detail what your plans are to fix them. Transparency would help you avoid so much nerd rage.

Garth Erlam, on 09 April 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

The hundreds of thousands of other players, though, aren't.

Like they'd notice. They lived with SRMs doing 10x damage for half a year and constantly applied the mantra of l2p and "stop whining" whenever the damage disparity was brought up. Also, are we borrowing players from league now? Where did hundreds of thousands come from?

Edited by Shumabot, 09 April 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[Shumabot]

CYBRN4CR, on 09 April 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Because THEY are the authors of the game THEY want to play and how things are designed all fit into that.

How YOU the player wants it to play and be balanced is really not their concern, but they say it is to keep you in limbo in the hopes that you will start seeing things their way.

Imagine trying to create or do anything and you have thousands of other people saying you should do it this way or do it that way, wouldn't you come to a point where you put your foot down and say "SHUT UP! I want to do it MY WAY!"

That's essentially what they are doing right now. ECM? Machine Guns? Yeah. If you REALLY don't like the game mechanics, then this isn't the game for you.

They're losing players and have admitted to having a lot of trouble keeping new players around.

[I am]

Garth,

Since your apprently watching this thread, I hope you catch this, and hope you respond. Please, just answer these questions, and I'll drop the issues.

1. Do you think that 4 man teams in 8 man matches lend to, or take away from, "fair and balanced matches".

2. What will be the future of MWO for the solo pubber. For as much as I have tried I just cant get my gaming pals to play/return to MWO. So my options are, play solo, find new pals, play the games my pals do enjoy. What should I expect as a solo pubber in the future meta for myself? The role of fodder, or something more substantial?

Heres a third if your interested...

3. Do you think the "weapon balance" issues are exaserbated by 4 mans, optimized with those builds?

I know your moving towards 12 v 12, and am intersted in hearing if you think this will help. But at this point, I am interested to hear if you think it is really even a problem at all.

One more:

4. Are you stopping at 12 v 12, or is this a step towards 20 v20, being implemented incrementally.
Side note: Ive played with you. You play aggressive, encourage teammates to move up with you, communicate, and by and large do very well.

(Thanks in advance if you happen to respond. I would love to hear your candid thoughts on these points.)

[Peg Leg Pete]

My issues with all the balance complaining is that the Dev's actually know all the things they have planned, including the things that aren't announced yet.

We don't know what their plans are.

Maybe they haven't touched the LBX because when collisions come back in they will have a 90% knockdown chance. Maybe Flamers will have a system to ignite landscape that will impede vision. Maybe they be increasing internal structure amounts. Maybe they will be adding static defenses that MG's are super effective against. Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...

The point is you can't balance something where all the parts aren't in place yet. So why spend the time tweaking something, that in 2 patches needs to get undone because another system is functioning?

I'm saying things are perfect, or that they can't be better, but is it really worth are all complaints about a system that is mostly working while still being worked on?

[MustrumRidcully]

jeffsw6, on 09 April 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Is your goal to nerf the 6 second alpha-strike battles?

If everyone had twice as much heat dissipation then wouldn't that effectively buff all mechs with a lot of energy hard-points? Would it not also cause people to equip ERPPCs or a bunch of MLs where many use more heat-efficient weapons right now? AC2 would certainly be more viable as a primary weapon.

I don't really understand how you think the game should change if your idea was implemented. I can imagine those mechs that boat 8 or 9 MLs becoming very, very deadly. Not sure I like that idea.

The problem wth the current heat capacityis - you get things like 6 PPC mechs because you can deal 120 damage in less than 5 seconds. That's good damage, especially if you can aim well and/or have a team mate that does the same. It doesn'T matter that this mech is shutdown half the match, if every 10 second another mech dies from it, it's doing a good job. You can obviously not rely on this in a PUG, but it is a concern.

The other problem is that MW:O is set in a table top time period where tech wasn't even supposed to be balanced. It's not just that FASA failed with the 3025 Level 1 Tech (AC/2 and AC/5 were too weak, for example, MLs probably too good). It's that they introduced Level 2 Tech to be intentionally more powerful than Level 1 Tech.

Under Level 1 Tech, single heat sinks would basically allow a reasonable balance between all the weapons, with the occassional outlier as mentioned before.

If you just add Double Heat Sinks to Level 1 Tech, you instantly obsolete the Auto-Cannons, because their weight is composed of the higher weapon weight and a lower number of heat sinks for similar damage potential as the energy weapons (or energy weapons would have within the range brackets the auto-cannons operate in, if there were such weapons).

The Ultra AC/5 and the LB10-X AC are Level 2 Auto-CAnnons that, coupled with DHS, attempt to make AUto-Cannons balnaced against Level 2 Double Heat Sinks + energy weapons.
So yes, my system would probably nerf the Auto-Cannons (and missiles, by the way) once you get Double Heat Sinks.

Basically, to compensate for this, one would either try to:
- Rebalance Level 1 and Level 2 Tech. This will be impossible if you also want to keep stock mechs viable, though. Either you will make Level 1 Mechs undergunned (but hey, that's still better than they are now, where they are overgunned and scaring away players), or make Level 2 Mechs overgunned (so like all stocks are now.)
- Introduce the Level 2 versions of all AUto-Cannons (screw the timeline option) now. If you want, you can also create "era" play modes or adjust the match-maker to ensure that Level 1 tech based mechs are not meched with Level 2 tech based mechs.

There is however no way to do this without some major tweak.
Either stock mechs of all kinds are borked because mechs produce vastly more heat then they were designed to handle.
Or you rebalance items so that Level 1 or Level 2 mechs are underpowered.
Or you break the timeline a bit to give us all variations of LBX and UAs for the Inner Sphere.
Or you live with LBX, Gauss Rifle and UAC5 being the only auto-cannon in time people with LEvel 2 Tech access use.

--

The question might be: Why do I prefer a low heat capacity, and high heat dissipation?
Because it gets us away from these alpha strike focus the game currently enjoys. An important factor to the alpha strike move is there because you can deal, in a short time, enough damage to take out or cripple a mech. f you can do this, you don't need to fear the shutdown. The Shutdown is a concern if you haven't done your job yet and the enemy can react to you and if he made a better build then you, shoot you dead while you're mech is cooling off.
A lower heat capacity will make many high alpha builds (but not all - A Gauss Rifle will never be limited by this, and this is also something you need to keep in mind) less practical and useful. Indirectly, it can also make boating less "necessary" - if you have to stagger your shots to avoid spiking the heat capacity, but cna still maintain your full DPS this way, it might not be such a big issue to have two different weapon properties to account for when aiming. Basically, we move from firing 6 PPCs at once, we move from 3 PPCs at once, followed 1 second later by another 3 PPCs, and fire the second cycle 2 seconds afterwards, it's not a big deal changing this to 2 PPCs at once and, say, 4 LRMs 1 second later.

[Shumabot]

CYBRN4CR, on 09 April 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Then why hang around? It's a sinking ship. You want to DROWN?

Schadenfreude.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sybreed, on 09 April 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Agreed

You know, I wish we could tweak weapon values in testing grounds so we could actually test different scenarios... imagine how amazing it would be.

Then again... I doubt PGI would ever take these into consideration.

Being able to set up your own server for MW:O with customized settings...

I'd pay a few MC for that.