Jump to content

Designed Imbalance

Balance

41 replies to this topic

#1 JackOfDiamonds

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 17 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:27 AM

Friends, perhaps the problems with gameplay stem not from balance, but a lack of designed imbalance.

In short

MWO needs intentional imbalance to promote different play styles and foster a proper metagame where there is more than one optimal route to victory. This can be achieved by changing the effects weapons have on mech components at different stages of the game.

Pinpoint damage of AC2s, 5s, PPCs, and Gauss rifles does full damage to armour, but only half to internals.

LRMs do full damage to armour and internals.
Lasers do full damage to armour and internals.
AC10 and AC20 do full damage to armour and internals.
SRMs do full damage to armour and double damage to internals.
Pulse lasers do double damage to armour and full damage to internals.


The Rationale:

Starcraft and DOTA2 for example have intentional periods of imbalance to promote different styles and encourage one side to be aggressive. Some strategies are stronger than others at specific points in the game. In SC2, zerg are strong early game, terran strong in the mid game, and protoss dominant at the end game. Winning players maximize their strength at points in the game to achieve victory. This ranges from the infamous zergling rush to the mighty protoss deathball.

Like SC, MWO is also a game of stages. I'd argue that there are five parts to the battle.

1) The Approach - characterized by scouting and manoeuvring your team into a favourable position.

2) The Skirmish (or poptart phase) - characterized by long range engagements and non-committal dog fights by lights in order to wear down armour and gain a clear advantage.

3) The Assault (or push) - characterized by one team moving forward to definitely engage the other team; usually after gaining an advantage in kills, armour, or position obtained during the Skirmish.

4) The Main Engagement (or brawl) - where the two teams have come together and engaging at short range with the intent of destroying the other team.

5) The Consolidation (or mopping up) - where a large number of mechs have lost limbs, significant armour, and weapon systems. By this point, one team is likely to prevail, though comebacks are possible.

MWO currently suffers because there is a dominant play style throughout the course of the game: pinpoint damage, usually from PPCs, AC5s, and gauss rifles. As a result, other play styles are simply not competitive.

Pinpoint damage dominates the approach because skilled players can accurately place damage at the other team from long range (recently nerfed).

Meta-builds dominate the Skirmish because they can deal major damage to individual components, stripping armour and killing enemy mechs more efficiently than anything else.

During the Advance, autocannons are PPCs are still exceptionally effective, picking off individual mechs and operating within their maximally effective ranges.

The brawl has no effect on the impact of autocannons, and only interferes with PPCs at pointblank ranges. Skilled teams and pilots are unaffected by this. During the brawl, other weapons such as lasers become more useful, but do not seriously challenge pinpont damage's supremacy.

Finally, in the consolidation stage, high crit weapons like machine guns and LBX10s become the most effective. Pinpoint damage remains highly viable however, as skilled shots destroy legs, XL engines, and centre torsos.

In short, there is no compelling reason to carry anything other than PPCs and AC5s. They are the dominant weapon systems at every stage of the fight bar the final mop up, where they still remain very effective.

Rather than nerf these pinpoint skill based weapons through cones of fire, or convergence changes, it is best to make other weapons more effective at different stages - or insert intentional imbalance to the game.

For example, change the damage profiles of different weapons.

Pinpoint damage weapons, like the AC5, AC2, and PPCs, do full damage against armour, but only half damage to internals. (Most effective during the Advance and Assault, less effective as the game progresses)

LRMs do full damage to armour and internals (Moderately effective at all stages).

Lasers do full damage to armour and internals (Moderately effective at all stages).

Pulse lasers do 1.5 x damage to armour and full damage to internals (Most effective during the Assault)

SRMs do full damage to armour and double damage to internals. (Most effective during the Main Engagement/Brawl)

Large bore ACs (10s and 20s) do full damage to armour and internals. (Moderately effective at all stabes)

Machine guns and LBX10 - no change.


In this fashion, teams are encouraged to have different configuration, either on the mech, or within the team. It is telling that in the tournament both final teams ran identical compositions of PPC/AC5 builds (8/12) and lights designed to perform well in the final portion of the battle (Medium lasers and MGs).

This makes for dull gameplay, and limited room for innovation. Starcraft is an exciting E-Sport with a devoted following because top players continuously innovate, and use different strategies against each other. When one style becomes strong, players find ways to overcome it. That is what the metagame should look like.

Unfortunately, MWO has one metagame, because the pinpoint damage is so strong at every stage of the battle. We will never see brawling teams seriously compete against pinpoint damage teams, because the pinpointers will do too much damage in the first three stages of the fight. By the time the brawlers close to optimal range, their armour is cored, their weapons are slagged, and they will still be facing mechs still operating under favourable conditions.

If however, the brawlers were composed predominantly of pulse lasers and SRMs, they could take advantage of the metagame to trade off long range damage to be extremely effective close up during the Assualt and Main Engagement. The pinpoint team would be at a disadvantage as their weapons are ineffective against mechs without armour.

Suddenly you have the potential for an exciting E-sport, where a team of fast moving pinpoint damage mechs with LRM support attempts to keep their distance against a heavy team of brawlers desperate to close the gap.

Position, distance, and use of terrain are now major elements in team success. Medium mechs and heavy assaults have greater purpose.

While games should also be balanced for top tier play, this sort of intentional imbalance would improve casual drops and PUG matches as well. Players who prefer brawling have an incentive to do it well, and those who like sniping have penalties to their builds, and must at the very least pay closer attention to their position and choice of targets.


In summary, MWO needs intentional imbalance to promote different play styles and foster a proper metagame where there is more than one optimal route to victory. This can be achieved by changing the effects weapons have on mech components at different stages of the game.

Pinpoint damage of AC2s, 5s, PPCs, and Gauss rifles does full damage to armour, but only half to internals.

LRMs do full damage to armour and internals.
Lasers do full damage to armour and internals.
AC10 and AC20 do full damage to armour and internals.
SRMs do full damage to armour and double damage to internals.
Pulse lasers do 1.5x damage to armour and full damage to internals.


Ladies, gentlemen, and friends, for your consideration.


-Jack.

Edited by JackOfDiamonds, 07 June 2014 - 03:30 AM.


#2 Impyrium

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,104 posts
  • LocationSouth Australia

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:35 AM

Didn't read all of it, but I think I got the general gist. I agree, though the problem is as soon as something appears 'asymmetrical' in usage, it's immediately 'OP' in the eyes of the general community. Many don't understand the concept that a weapon requires a whole different strategy than another.

#3 zhajin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:37 AM

they already do this to some extent with mgs and lbx and their crit system. I tend to think srms should have a bump in crit damage as well. but over it just seems to complicated for PGI to manage.

but yes part of the problem with the way PGI balances, is that they do not create enough specialization. most long range weapons are just as effective at short range as short range weapons. also as you pointed out all damage is the same for all weapons.

look at any decent FPS and you will find a range of weapons all with strengths and weaknesses, that balance each other out. this is the key to the diversity, the weapons need balance within their own abilities. what we get is a range of weapons that are not well balanced in this regard.

ultimately it comes down to the fact that PGI is trying to balance based on table top ideals that do not work in FPS game play. This has been known since early closed beta but they are either too stubborn or just not capable of adapting.

It also does not help that PGI had little experience with FPS games and no experience with Online games. They are a contract shop that mostly specializes in picking up franchises that are on their last leg.

Edited by zhajin, 04 June 2014 - 05:47 AM.


#4 Tombstoner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,193 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:40 AM

Most of this can be done with increasing damage or internals.

one could also consider partial damage penetration. some weapons do 100% to armor and 0% to internal but others do 80% to armor and 20% to internals. that happens as long as armor lasts then full damage is applied to internals only.

This would slow down the time it takes for the internals once exposed to go from green to black. it creates an opportunity for a critical hit system.

Alternatively give some weapons an x% chance to crit for some percentage of damage penetration.

#5 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:46 AM

View Postzhajin, on 04 June 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

they already do this to some extent with mgs and lbx and their crit system. I tend to think srms should have a bump in crit damage as well. but over it just seems to complicated for PGI to manage. but yes part of the problem with the way PGI balances, is that they do not create enough specialization. most long range weapons are just as effective at short range as short range weapons. also as you pointed out all damage is the same for all weapons. look at any decent FPS and you will find a range of weapons all with strengths and weaknesses, that balance each other out. this is the key to the diversity, the weapons need balance within their own abilities. what we get is a range of weapons that are not well balanced in this regard. ultimately it comes down to the fact that PGI is trying to balance based on table top ideals that do not work in FPS game play. This has been known since early closed beta but they are either too stubborn or just not capable of adapting. It also does not help that PGI had little experience with FPS games and no experience with Online games.


Funny thing is, AC20 and AC10 can eat through internals much much better than LB-10X. FLD > pellets. AC20 should ideally deal half damage to internals.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 June 2014 - 05:47 AM.


#6 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:53 AM

I can dig it!

It's actually a new idea around here, at least one I haven't seen before. It makes sense, it follows the logic the team applied to MG/LBX weapons, and it would provide better game play.

I hope they read and try it, I doubt they will.

#7 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:04 AM

View PostEl Bandito, on 04 June 2014 - 05:46 AM, said:


Funny thing is, AC20 and AC10 can eat through internals much much better than LB-10X. FLD > pellets. AC20 should ideally deal half damage to internals.

I can agree to this... so long as ACs stay solid slugs. :D

#8 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:20 AM

Could work but the specifics need ironing out. Pulse lasers doing double damage to armor would be absurdly overpowered. Large Pulse Lasers would be superior to PPCs in nearly every way.

#9 Rhaythe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,203 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:23 AM

I'd be interested in seeing these mechanics at work. Though it might create a problem where the heavy mechs strip all of the armor, leaving the weakened exposed internals as light mech food. I imagine the kill-to-death ratio purists would flip a lid about that.

#10 DONTOR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,806 posts
  • LocationStuck on a piece of Commando in my Ice Ferret

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:24 AM

Oh noooooo LPLs not sucking!

#11 zazz0000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:26 AM

Funny, I was just thinking last night about how MWO's problem is that the only kinds of damage is "Damage" and "Crit". No weapon symbiosis (say, lasers + SRM hitting at the same time boost SRM damage), no armor piercing or damage scaling based on specific amount of armor present.

Yes. Fully support your idea. And want more. MORE.

#12 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:28 AM

Quote

Oh noooooo LPLs not sucking!


haha. its not just them not sucking. They would be blatantly overpowered.

A pair of LPLs could do 42.4 damage for a meager 17 heat.

compared to PPCs which would only do 20 damage for 20 heat. And half damage to internals.

#13 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:39 AM

View PostKhobai, on 04 June 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Could work but the specifics need ironing out. Pulse lasers doing double damage to armor would be absurdly overpowered. Large Pulse Lasers would be superior to PPCs in nearly every way.

So full damage to armor and 50-75% to structure maybe?

#14 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:41 AM

Quote

So full damage to armor and 50-75% to structure maybe?


Personally I would just increase internal structure across the board. Then give certain weapons like SRMs bonus damage to internal structure. That basically has the same effect but more streamlined. Also makes crits more meaningful since items will have more chances to get critted out before the entire internal structure gets blown out.

#15 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:44 AM

View PostKhobai, on 04 June 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:


Personally I would just increase internal structure across the board. Then give certain weapons like SRMs bonus damage to internal structure. That basically has the same effect but more streamlined. Also makes crits more meaningful since items will have more chances to get critted out before the entire internal structure gets blown out.

I don't even like the doubled armor and Cyclic rates this game has now, This has been proclaimed a BattleTech game, lets start making it feel like one! :D

#16 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:48 AM

Quote

I don't even like the doubled armor and Cyclic rates this game has now, This has been proclaimed a BattleTech game, lets start making it feel like one!


The problem is you need double armor to counteract aiming and convergence. the only way original armor values would work is if you added RNG to the aiming reticle. which would be terrible IMO. so double armor is pretty much a necessary evil.

#17 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:51 AM

View PostKhobai, on 04 June 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:


The problem is you need double armor to counteract aiming and convergence. the only way original armor values would work is if you added RNG to the aiming reticle. which would be terrible IMO. so double armor is pretty much a necessary evil.

RNG would feel wrong but CoF would be a better solution. As long as if it only applied when firing more than one weapon at a time. With exception to lasers.

#18 Voivode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hungry
  • The Hungry
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 07:01 AM

I like your ideas. Definitely need refinement, but the concept of situational weapons is intriguing. This would be especially meaningful if they boosted internal structure health, and then weapons like ac5/PPC combo would be much, much weaker in the circumstance of armor being stripped.

#19 JackOfDiamonds

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 17 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 07:50 AM

I'm glad to see this idea has, for the most part, been taken positively.

By all means, refine away. I would not suggest for a moment that I have the best solution, just a way of making the game more interesting.

Double damage to pulse lasers is almost certainly overkill.

Perhaps 1.5? I'm not sure really.

As a community however I think we need to get away from strict adherence to tabletop rules. If only because MWO is not played on the table top. What makes for an outstanding board game does not necessarily translate well into a competitive and fun first person simulator.

What MWO can do, that no other game seems able to provide, is generate a game that blends skill and knowledge. Knowledge to build coordinated teams, knowledge of where to hit (taking off arms, taking XL shoulders etc), and the skills to make those shots.

So please, feel free to make refinements. I particularly appreciate when people bring in math. The argument that Large Pulses doing 42.5 damage for example, is particularly compelling in suggesting that double damage to armour is over powered.

Further, what do people think of the five stages of the game I suggested?

Cheers

-Jack

#20 Bobzilla

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,003 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 04 June 2014 - 08:16 AM

View Postzazz0000, on 04 June 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

Funny, I was just thinking last night about how MWO's problem is that the only kinds of damage is "Damage" and "Crit". No weapon symbiosis (say, lasers + SRM hitting at the same time boost SRM damage), no armor piercing or damage scaling based on specific amount of armor present.

Yes. Fully support your idea. And want more. MORE.


I always thought, just glowing from heat damage from lasers would attract srms a little would be nice.

But having certain weapons acting like this is setting this game up to be worse than it is. On a single mech, sure sounds nifty, get an organized 12 man with dedicated armor strippers and dedicated internal destroyers, TTK will drop to seconds.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users