Wasn't going to bother posting but finally decided to give it a shot anyway. Apologies for any ramble, errors, inconsistencies, lack of focus, grammatical errors, absurdities and other words in the English language. Also, posting from phone which often corrects words, using the loosest possible interpretation of the meaning "corrects".
Much of what is proposed is great - normalising SSRM spread, adding overheat damage (125% would be better) etc. which is why it's such a shame about the boating proposal.
First I'll address hardpoint size limitations. I really think people should stop asking for this. It's unlikely to happen at a purely business level. MW Tactics already has this system. They are both produced by IGP. It wouldn't surprise me if this was considered a core difference between the two games and as such never makes it into MWO.
Secondly, I think the solution must lie in tactical applications and not arbitrary, confusing, random, exponentially increasing differences between existing systems. There is no reason that makes sense to a gamer why certain weapons or items would function differently based on which mech, or how many of a type you equip.
Just take a step back and look at the system objectively and from a new players perspective. Also, reflect the core game design principles.
A ) This game has been developed from the ground up with the idea of skill based, pin point aiming. Accept that and move on.
B ) customisation and freedom to create your own builds is one if the greatest strengths in this game. The Mechlab is essential, undermining this system is bad juju.
C ) There are certain constants or underpinning systems around which the game is already balanced. These include tonnage, crit slots, heat, ammo, engine sizes (and therefore speed), hard point locations, general movement such as torso twist etc.
What this means is each time a balance change is required, it should be made to operate within the existing assumptions. Giving a particular mech variant slightly greater torso twist for example is acceptable, as it doesn't affect the underlying torso twist system. It instead simply tweaks a value in that system.
The proposed change to heat balancing is like changing the constant for gravity, but only if you are over 6' tall. Can you imagine if gravity on our planet changed based of random variables? You don't mess with gravity, you need to know certain truths in life or everything is quicksand. As soon as you mess about with these underpinning systems, you risk breaking free the tethers that hold our suspension of disbelief in place.
Look instead towards systems that enhance and add depth to your universe. PGI has the numbers, but many people have already commented on ways the current meta can be canceled. Parse the numbers and see patterns. For example. Statistically speaking, perhaps it is mechs with a top speed of greater than 80kph that consistently take out PPC Stalkers. What does this tell us from a balance perspective?
We need to somehow increase the viability of manoeuvrability vs turret shooting. The easiest way to do this is tie two existing systems together. Heat and movement.
The more heat you generate, the slower you move. This is a tactical balance. When you expose yourself to shoot, it is harder to get behind cover again as your heat gets higher. There are already numerous cues in game to telegraph this to the player. Heat sinks start hissing when under load. Heat sinks give off stream that opponents can see when they get hot. All this will provide people with the visual and audible cues needed to enhance and add depth to their tactical play.
The flow on effects will be numerous. People will start having to make choices. Do I take lots of weapons and risk becoming a turret? Or do I run cool and maintain tactical superiority? You even already have cool shot in game. A light can now choose to use cool shot tactically. Do they run in on that stalker, push their heat with alphas then run out using cool shot to regain speed?
This sort of solution doesn't take away player choice. You are still free to run any weapons you want. You can alpha as much as you want. Nothing has been changed in how underlying systems function. All that occurs is now you add a value proposition to the mix. Player choice is actually enhanced. Greater depth and interaction between systems is accomplished.
Solutions become more about organic tactics, team work and less about specific solutions to temporary problems. Systems can be balanced and fine tuned. Specific constructs such as this proposed boating solution can only ever entropically decay as values change over time.
The worst possible thing you can do in game design is add in specific variables that function differently under arbitrary conditions. You need to take a good look at your key principles and ask how you can leverage your existing assets, without compromising on the ideals this game was founded on.
Players need positive control over their play. We already have this in crit slots, tonnage, heat, engine size, ammo loadout etc. Taking away any of this control, is punishing player choice and doesn't add depth. It instead frustrates the player and their play style.
This sort of balanced system also means it will work for all variables. LRM boating, PPC boating etc. It is a scaling solution as it is based of already existing design limitations in the game.
Consistent, rationale, believable = Good
Random, arbitrary, disconnected = Bad
I highly doubt I've managed to get across my whole point as its more a concept for design principles than a pure mathematical solution. I've also been stewing on these thoughts for days now and still haven't been able to distill the essence of my thoughts, as it gets more complicated the more you think about it. I also haven't covered anywhere near the number if core features of the game, only what pertains to my argument. However hopefully the edges are enough to sketch in the basics of understanding.
Edited by Arcturious, 13 June 2013 - 06:32 PM.
1
This topic is locked
It's made even worse by combining it with crit space. 
