14
EDIT: 2013-07-09 – Garth has now responded to this thread twice, and as per a promise I made after his first response, I am editing this post to be less hostile. PGI has proven me wrong about listening to and interacting with their player base. Thank you Garth.
Mechwarrior Online as it currently stands suffers from a variety of issues that affect balance. From my perspective, the three largest offenders are Damage, Heat management, and Convergence. The thread is organized into sections selectable with the spoiler tag to try and make reading a bit easier.
TL; DR Synopsis
Spoiler
Damage
Okay, now, let’s consider some factors that go into balance with a mech game. The first and foremost factor to consider is damage.
Spoiler
As these tables illustrate, MWO is –NOT- utilizing table top damage values (that have had 30+ years of balancing). Instead, they are using table top damage numbers (mostly) with arbitrary recycle times. This nets an AVERAGE of 1.97 times the damage of table top weapons (3.94 if you don’t consider the doubled armor values). With weapons dealing twice the damage intended on AVERAGE (The spread ranges between .94 times and 10 times as much damage) it is little wonder that mechs die extremely fast in MWO.
If MWO utilized TT DPS numbers (or double TT DPS numbers, as the armor is currently doubled), that portion of balancing would be done. “But DJ!” you might say “No one wants to wait 10 seconds to fire their guns!”, that’s not an issue. To achieve the 2.00 DPS of the AC20, rather than fire one big shot of 20, why not 4 smaller shots of 5dmg every 2.5/sec, or even a 10 round burst of 2dmg shells over the period of 5 seconds followed by a 5 second reload time, or any combination thereof that results in a 2.00 DPS.
The goal here is to take those huge chunks of damage and spread them out over a 10 second period. Why 10 seconds? Because that’s how long a round in BattleTech lasts, so that’s the time scale we’re converting to real time.
Additionally, PGI could offer different variants of weapons based around the same DPS, I.E. instead of all AC20’s dealing 20 damage in 10 shots, players could select a cannon that does 20 damage in one shot with a 10 second reload time, one that does 20 damage in 4 shots with a 2.5 second reload time between shots, or one that does 20 damage over 10 shots, firing a shell every half second.
Spoiler
As an aside, speaking of autocannons, the ammunition for every ammo fed weapon should be translated as such, 1 “round” of ammo is enough for 10 seconds of sustained firing.
Heat
The next factor for balance is the heat output of a weapon. Once again, PGI has opted to use their own heat values as opposed to table top values. This though, has not always been the case. PGI has adjusted the heat values to try and balance the damage output of the weapons they have so egregiously unbalanced. The tables below illustrate the tweaking they have done.
Spoiler
It is interesting to note that ballistics and the lighter energy weapons have suffered the most, while the extremely boat-able PPCs have suffered the least, but across the board the average weapon generates 4.21 times more HPS than TT balance intended, with the worst “boat” offending weapons well below that. If HPS and DPS in MWO were consistent with TT values, DHS could be returned to their standard dissipation rates, AND trial mechs would actually be viable.
Because of these unevenly increased HPS values the heat capacity equation was modified. TT heat was balanced based on the following equation…
Heat Capacity = # of Single Heat Sinks
Or…
Heat Capacity = # of Double Heat Sinks x 2.
MWO uses a different equation.
Heat Capacity = # of Single Heat sinks + 30
Or…
Heat Capacity = (# of Engine Double Heat Sinks x 2)+(# od external Double Heat sinks x 1.4)+30
On a stock chassis, this nets about 4 to 5 times (10 cap in TT is now 40 in MWO) as much heat capacity before penalties begin.
Heat should then be returned to the TT equation, as the following chart will demonstrate, when taken hand in hand with the TT damage numbers being used.
Spoiler
This is EXTREMELY important, as when the amount of heat soak allowed before penalty taken in conjunction with the increased DPS of weapons allows the worst offending weapons to deal about 2.5 times as much Damage as intended by balance, far in excess of most other weapon. This is even taking into account the doubled armor values.
Finally, MWO does not handle heat penalties well. Below is a translation I would propose for use by MWO, where 0=100% of the Heat Pool of a mech, and everything above that is heat generated in excess of that amount.
Spoiler
Convergence
The next factor in this discussion is the most controversial. It is also the topic most in desperate need of adjustment. Convergence is, in layman’s terms, how a weapon meets the reticle. In MWO, every single weapon has pixel perfect aim, meaning that every weapon will travel exactly where you fire it. Not only is this highly unrealistic, it is also gravely damaging to the balance mechanics of the game. Because mechs use an individual component based health system, armor is spread out across the mech in different areas. With pixel perfect aiming, pilots are able to ignore up to 82% of a mech’s total armor, simply because they can pour fire into just the center torso without any appreciable variance. Not only are they able to do that, but they are able to do it, using the ER PPC as an example, at 2.73 times the TT rate (adjusted for armor) with a single weapon. Because of the messed up heat system, they can do that exact thing with up to 4 ER PPCs at a time, leading to a total of 5.46 to 10.92 times the intended rate of table top, or the difference between 20DMG in 10 seconds (2 ER PPCs was about the most you could fire usefully in TT at a time) and 109.2DMG in 10 seconds on the LOW end of the scale. Of special note, 109.2 DMG is an interesting number, as it’s MORE damage in 10 seconds than most Atlases carry for armor in their CT.
Now that we understand why convergence is so important, let’s explore some possible solutions. The first solution is to simply have every weapon use a fixed convergence point that varies slightly from match to match. This is a simple and elegant method, but it does not promote tactical diversity, as it really does not take into account –why- weapons aren’t pin-point accurate.
To better simulate the lore-based reason (and add a touch of diversity breeding realism) I have, over the course of this thread, come up with a composite system.
First, each weapon should be assigned a user viewable Ballistic Complexity Factor. This number is important, as some weapons are easier to aim than others. From that point, the total BCF of a mech’s loadout is taken and compared against the Targeting Computer’s rating. If the total BCF of a loadout is less than the computer’s rating, the percentage difference is then deducted from every weapon’s Cone of Fire. If the total BCF is in excess, the opposite happens, with the difference added to the CoF. The elegance of this solution, is that stock mechs like the Swayback won’t suffer a penalty, as the relatively simple to aim medium laser can realistically be aimed by a basic targeting computer (or maybe the swayback carries a better computer?)
Spoiler
As mentioned before, the user can opt to upgrade their targeting computer. This could be handled in two ways. The simple way is for various raw BCF levels to be available for player purchase. The complex way is for three branches of targeting computers to be available in different levels, specializing in Missiles, Beam Weapons, and Ballistic Weapons.
The next portion of this complex issue is the cone of fire. Many people will vehemently oppose this idea, screaming their protest under the banner of “Don’t nerf skill!”. The problem with this argument is that if every weapon hits pixel perfect, it doesn’t take a ton of skill to hit an enemy at extended range. What should be taken into account is that a baseline cone of fire will still guarantee a hit on a benchmark mech (the hunchback would be an ideal candidate for this) at the weapons max optimal range.
Spoiler
By using a solution similar to this, weapons should now be enabled to do their full damage out to extreme ranges, allowing for suppressing fire to matter (I personally don’t even take cover against PPCs fired at me beyond 1300m). If there’s a chance for you to take a significant hit at range, a player is more likely to use cover properly.
The final factor to help combat the current proliferation of 40dmg alpha strikes hitting the same location is the modification of the convergence system. My favorite solution for this is a two factor approach. First, Torso mounted weapons have a fixed convergence point to account for the minimal azimuth and deflection adjustment available to them. This can either be based on the maximum optimal range of the weapon, or a user selectable value (select convergence in mechlab). Second, arms are given a rating for how well they can converge, meaning that they will always converge on the reticle within a range window, say 200m to infinity, as arm mounted weapons can fire straight forward and never converge, so there’s no reason to have a max convergence.
Time
As I have mentioned previously, time is a much neglected balance mechanic. It is also extremely useful. For example, the AC10 and the PPC both deal 10 damage per time increment. They weigh different amounts, have different heats, and the AC10 uses ammo, but how do you make them distinct beyond "The PPC is an AC10 that doesn't use ammo"...
That's where time comes into play. The illustration below shows a proposed 10 second abstract of a PPC and an AC10. Of note, the PPC fires three times in 10 seconds, for 3.33 damage each, while the AC10 fires twice in that same period, BUT the AC10 fires a burst of shells.
Spoiler
In this instance, the AC10 is better in engagements from 0.75s-3.33s and 5.5s-10s as far as damage on target goes, BUT the PPC deals all of it's damage at once, whereas the AC10 has a chance for some of it's shots to go stray. There are a variety of reasons based on a time scale mechanic to choose one over the other, and that's half the fun of the game; deciding which weapon to use for tactical reasons, and not because "I can put 40pts of damage into someone CT at 600m with one click".
Below are some composite illustrations outlining the potential variety of weapons in this system and how they deal damage, as well as a PDF that has these charts and individual charts for each weapon that also show heat.
Spoiler
PDF Compilation
Conclusion
While PGI has certainly failed to balance the game up until this point, there is still hope. If the players come up with reasonable and intelligently thought out ideas, PGI will listen. Garth has responded to this thread twice, proof that PGI does read the forums. However, PGI will not automatically implement an idea because you had it. It still takes compromise, reason, and facts. Thank you for reading this thread up to this point at least, and look forward to much intelligent discourse ahead if you decide to proceed.
Experimental Calculator
This calculator is experimental and uses translated TT values to demonstrate what 10 seconds of play would feel like from a damage and heat output perspective.
Table Top to Real Time Weapons Simulator.
Edited by DarkJaguar, 17 July 2013 - 01:14 PM.
