17 replies to this topic

[Angry Kylo Ren]

MECHWARRIOR ONLINE REBALANCE CONCEPT.

The Idea
To rebalance mechs based on role warfare as set out by PGI.

How we do that
If the idea is to rebalance based on role warfare, let's start by defining mech roles and how they make use of the 4 key components in each mech - firepower, mobility, sensors and armour.

Mech Roles
I grouped the mechs into those potential roles. Can debate the names later. =p

1) Scout: +Sensors +Mobility
2) Harasser: +Mobility +Firepower
3) Interceptor: +Mobility +Armour
4) Tank: +Armour
5) Support: +Sensors +Armour
6) Striker: +Firepower +Armour
7) Sniper: +Sensors +Firepower
Valuing The 4 Mech Components
Before we apply anything, we need to know that the 4 components are not equal. I see them like this:
Firepower >>> Mobility = Armour >>> Sensors

So when applying quirks, firepower counts as a 2% for every 1% added, mobility and armour as 1% and Sensors for 0.25%.

Applying the roles
The idea is to give each role a level based on how much love the mech needs (determined by existing hardpoints and hitboxes essentially). From previous quirks we see that anything below 10% is a waste of time. I know anything above 30% gets ridiculous on weapons, but when you see how its' applied I think it'll work.

These values of course can be adjusted.

Level 0: No quirks required -1 mech/module slot
Level 1: Quirk total max 20%
Level 2: Quirk total max 50%
Level 3: Quirk total max 100%
Level 4: Quirk total max 150% + 1 bonus mech/weapon slot
Level 5: Quirk total max 200% + 2 bonus mech/weapon slots

In terms of quirks - we should avoid quirks which directly effect the weapon system (VELOCITY) and focus on the mechs internal system which effect weapons (HEAT DISSIPATION, STABILITY WHEN FIRING, RE-FIRE RATE ETC)

I see modules as a chance to 'design your own quirks' - and as such they should be made more plentiful and a little cheaper. They should also be stackable.

Here's an example with 2 scout mechs:

Take a terrible scout mech (Say LCT-1M or COM-1B) and give it level 5 quirks.

It could get:
+100% sensor range
+100% target aquisition time
+100% target lock time
+100% target aquisition delay (defensive)
+25% acceleration
+25% deceleration
+25% turn rate
+25 % torso twist rate
+2 Additional mech/weapon module slots.

Since sensor quirks account for 0.25 points each, and movement quirks 1 point each, you can see the above total comes to the 200% total quirks allowed for a level 5 Scout.
This means, out of the box, the commanda 1B would aquire targets much farther, much faster and hold them longer, as well as anyone trying to target the 1B would take twice as long to lock on to it - meanwhile it moves quicker.

You also get the extra 2 mech/weapon slots to customise it to the quirks you like. They could be stacking on 2x heat dissipation modules if you want to make your scout a little more of an energy boat etc etc.



Take a much better scout mech (Say SDR-5D) and give it level 3 quirks.
Currently, I think there is no Level 1 or Level 0 scout mech in the game. So we take a 'better' scout like the Spider 5D and slot it into level 3. Yes, for those paying attention I'm basing it on Gman's metamechs rankings for now.

It could get:
+50% sensor range
+100% target aquisition time
+100% target lock time
+50% target aquisition delay (defensive)
+25% acceleration

Now you can see that given the spider has ECM and more firepower, there's a significant trade-off between the 2 mechs. Is it balanced? Not entirely sure. But at least there's a clear FORMULA at work here.


Here's another example using 2 snipers:

VND-1R: LEVEL 5 SNIPER
+100% sensor range
+100% target aquisition delay (defensive)
+20% Heat dissipation
+25% faster weapon cooldown
+40% less shake while jumping
+2 Additional mech/weapon module slots.


You can debate the numbers - but I do feel that this mech suddenly looks like it could have an interesting role - less reticle shake while jumping could be a nice quirk for some sniper mechs.

SHD-2H: LEVEL 3 SNIPER
(This mech is level 2 in Metamechs, but that's with existing quirks)

+100% sensor range
+100% target aquisition time
+15% Heat dissipation
+10% faster weapon cooldown


One last example using a tank:

Atlas AS7-D - Level 4 Tank

+20% CT Armour
+20% LT Armour
+20% RT Armour
+20% CT Structure
+20% LT Structure
+20% RT Structure
+15% LA Armour
+15% RA armour
+1 Bonus Module Slot


Module System Rework:
To make this really sing, we should rework the module system as well. And modules should also be grouped into the 4 clusters (Mobility, Sensors, Firepower, Armour).

I think all of these quirks should also be available as modules (max 10% value) costing 1-3m (if you buy outside your mech's core role you spend more $) each. And they should all be stackable. So you should be able to then decide how to customise your mech with modules.

NEW EDIT - How it could work for clans:
My idea for clan mechs is that individual components do not give quirks. Instead, the chassis gives a set of quirks, and your percentage of quirk decreases the less omnipods of that chassis you have on your mech.

For example - TBR-S being a mobile brawler may get 20% jump jet thrust and 20% jump jet fuel regeneration quirks, as well as 10% heat dissipation if you bring it stock.

For every omnipod NOT from TBR-S, you lose 5% across the board.

(Those numbers are totally off the top of my head btw).

This way it also gives clanners a bigger difference between chassis...as one of the big clan issues now is each chassis is barely different from the other.

NEW EDIT 2 - LEGENDARY QUIRKS
Had another idea - some mechs should have specific quirks if they are known for doing one thing very well.

For example - Jagermechs getting ultra ACs that don't jam, Hunchbacks getting AC20s with much bigger ROF, Awesomes with the PPCs getting big heat quirks.

For clan mechs, these will ONLY UNLOCK if the entire mech is using a single set of omnipods - off the top of my head, bring the stock WHK-PRIME and you can get real big buffs to handling 4 ERPPCs.

The only time weapons should be quirked is on the chassis totally known for them.

Edited by makbeer, 13 September 2015 - 08:37 AM.

[InRev]

This is awesome. Here you have roles being defined in a way that is clear, simple and cogent.

I would love to play this game.

PS: The best part is, there is no negative quirk clutter either.

[TheSteelRhino]

The thing I don't like about it is plus this and plus that looks like the old buff vs nerf. Now..for some things it makes sense. +10% maneuverability, +20% acceleration...ok that's fine.

But lets talk about OTHER quirks.

How about Sloped Front Armour - " This armour design on compatible mech chassis's provides and extra 15% protection".
or

Heavy duty internal structure ( example LA/RA) - This mech was designed with above avg internal structure to support the wieght of ...whatever weapons systems..probably autocannon".

For Sensors, I would eliminate the +100 % etc....and go with thus:

Standard Sensor Suite. (ie...most mechs right, in theory at least).
Scout Sensor Suite.
Fire Support Sensor suite. - This mechs sensor package is geared toward providing improved detection (maybe better zoom) ranges specific for targeting. (ie..the Garret D2J on Rifleman and Jagermech)

Another example on weapons cooldown. The PPC on the Vindy is designed to be dipped in the water to help dissipate heat more quickly . Ok..that won't translate well to mwo (dipping it in water) ..but that is a QUIRK...so..PPC produce...15% less heat...but WRAP it in an Explanation.

Look...You are going to say how this is different. It's not a lot actually. But it at least provides some reasoning behind why vs what appears to be ...oh this mech just got buffed. I think that's been part of the problem all along.

I also think that it's short sighted to keep focusing ONLY on in match changes for balance. I think, when you are in the mech lab, and you select a mech to ready up for a drop, an inventory check should be done to check your ammo levels etc...and it should ask if you wish to replenish. (not the old repair and rearm). But this would start encouraging some more diverse builds..ie...suddenly burning 2000 LRMS in a drop doesn't look quite so appealing. (would apply to any ammo, and more technologically advanced the more it costs).

And lets face it..laserboating is all well and good, until you get a hot map..then not so much.

The key thing is perception is important. I love the idea of information warfare..i really do..but the maps aren't big enough and I question if there are enough to make that a focus. But we can flat out state..(which you do and I like) this mech is designed for Fire Support. As such it has the Fire support Sensor package (ie..garret D2J)..etc....

Defining the roles of the mech and variants makes sense..having said that...we need to be careful here to pay attn to what the were in Battletech/Lore...(I know this isn't TT and this is a different game...but a lot of old timers play this game..I am one, and nostalgia matters to some ppl). What I would suggest, is simply look at THE STOCK LOADOUT of the mech and determine it's roll from that. Read Sarna .



Thanks
Rhino

[Angry Kylo Ren]

Thanks for the detailed feedback Rhino! Lots of good insights and ideas.

I agree with you the system can really be pushed in terms of depth and taking quirks beyond the standard quirks.

For now I wanted to focus on the concept and the approach to quirks.

I find PGI is going all over the place saying they want to create role warfare but they haven't actually defined roles. If you can't do that I don't know how you can have proper role warfare.

So this idea is based around handling quirks from the role the mech is designed to play as opposed to seemingly st random, and I think it can really help to formulate and add focus to the way quirks are handed out.

[Duke Nedo]

Very similar to what I had in mind but never wrote up under point 3 in my feedback: http://mwomercs.com/...t-still-happen/

Would love to see this in combination with a round of faction balance before quirks are applied...

[Angry Kylo Ren]

Yup...good feedback in your thread Duke.

I think the big issue here is that the quirks are seemingly at random and PGI has not shown any data or any explanation of how they came about.

I also fail to see how role warfare is being well established at the moment.

Something similar in concept to what proposed here could really help lend focus to the way quirks are applied and help keep mechs feeling unique without excessive use of weapon quirks.

[Angry Kylo Ren]

Made an edit to the end of the post to including

HOW TO HANDLE CLAN MECHS

and

UNIQUE QUIRKS FOR LEGENDARY MECHS (PPC AWESOME for example).

[Astrocanis]

The problem is that everyone is buying into the "mech balancing" paradigm. The GAME does not support these roles. It doesn't matter, at all, what the roles are for different mech / builds if the game does not support the need and the rewards therefrom. And it doesn't. So we can theorycraft for hours about what would be cool (and I do actually like these concepts), but until maps, objectives, initial placement, fog of war, size, rewards, skills and PSR are adjusted to support these concepts, they will die on the vine. And what will be left are IS far inferior to Clan but still skirmish papered over.

[Angry Kylo Ren]

Agree that game design needs some work, but focus now is in mech design. And I think there are roles to play on the battlefield to some extent so we can at least play off of that with balance. But whatever you do to the game firepower and killing stuff will always reign supreme anyway. So better focus on that and keep that in mind. Attempts to make scouting equal to firepower will be futile

[Merit Lef]

I'd support this change.

[Angry Kylo Ren]

Thanks Merit!!

[MikeBend]

Now if only we could get PGI to read this. OP, your ideas are great.

[Captian Insano]

Great Post OP!! Hopefully PGI has a read!!

[Xavier]

I completely agree with this and I have drawn a diagram to illustrate how you could use the mech skill tree to achieve this and allow pilots to choose the role for each mech.

for a larger image please click this link

https://pbs.twimg.co...AV-Zb.png:large

Edited by Xavier, 14 September 2015 - 11:12 AM.

[TheSteelRhino]

Nooo. This just lost my support. U are now basically taking battlemechs and making them into podless omnimechs. Just no.

[DivineEvil]

It's funny how I've described a veeeery similar concept in my thread yesterday, and it got almost no feedback. But whatever, I'm havent posted it for attention, but to potentialy encourage PGI to develop an ideology for role definitions among the mechs. So I'm gonna address your idea in a framework of mine, if you don't mind.

makbeer, on 12 September 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

Mech Roles
I grouped the mechs into those potential roles. Can debate the names later. =p

1) Scout: +Sensors +Mobility
2) Harasser: +Mobility +Firepower
3) Interceptor: +Mobility +Armour
4) Tank: +Armour
5) Support: +Sensors +Armour
6) Striker: +Firepower +Armour
7) Sniper: +Sensors +Firepower

There's no need to define so many of these roles. You need only four baseline roles, and to allow for hybrids between them if required. These four roles are what determine the core aspect of the chassis, or a 60 to 80 percent of the quirks, that will be given to each variant of that mech.

If a given mech is designed as a front-line combat, urban assault mech, it will get Brawler role, which focuses on Defensive aspect quirks. If a mech is a direct fire-support, gun-blazing weapon platform, it will get Skirmisher role with mainly Firepower aspect quirks. If mech is designed with a concept of maneuvering, flanking and hit-and-run tactics, its a Striker with emphasis on Mobility buffs. Command vehicles, determined scouts and dedicated LRM boats will recieve Support role with a good bunch of Sensor quirks.

The exception here is Hero Mechs. Hero mechs will represent a different primary aspect of the chassis, than of its standard variants. So if Cataphract represents a Brawler role, the Ilya Muromets will be a Skirmisher, or if a Kintaro chassis is a Sensors-based chassis, then a Golden Boy is in fact a Mobility hog.
Compact baseline:


You can argue, that there's some mechs, that are misplaced, but if you'd do a research on Sarna.net about these mechs, you'll see they're on their rightful places when matched to one-another. Crab and Wolfhound are left out just because they'd screw the table off. You can figure out yourself where they'd go.

makbeer, on 12 September 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

Applying the roles
The idea is to give each role a level based on how much love the mech needs (determined by existing hardpoints and hitboxes essentially). From previous quirks we see that anything below 10% is a waste of time. I know anything above 30% gets ridiculous on weapons, but when you see how its' applied I think it'll work.

My idea about that phase, is that we need to develop an arbitrary point system to weight mechs to each other, depending on their physical aspects.

First we need to look specifically on each chassis in general to determine how it counts versus other mechs of the same weight class. To be more certain, we might want to determined if any of them fits to be a baseline representative of that weight class. For example, the Enforcer seem to be a good baseline for 50t bracket. Hunchback, Centurion, Trebuchet and Crab might need some modifiers to make them equal to what Enforcer represents, based on what flaws and advantages they have compared to each-other.

Since quirks are have to be in place to some minimum extent to differentiate the chassies from one-another. We give each chassis a default point values, say 20 "quirk points". Then we individually modify that value for each mech based on it's "fixed" properties.
Is that mech relatively tall, but not oversized? +5 points.
Is that mech actually oversized? +10 points.
Is that mech has some exceptionally large components? +5 points.
Is that mech has weapon HPs in 2rd quad of it's height? +2 points per HP.
Is that mech has weapon HPs in 4th quad of it's height? -2 points per HP.
And so on.

Then we modify these values further for each specific variant of these mechs. Does one has ECM capability? Does it has 2x AMS slots? Does it has higher or lower max engine rating? Lower angular limits? Fewer or more weapon hardpoints than the rest? Same thing.

Only after that, we then evaluate how much of quirk values each of these points worth. And to make it even better, we'd make a separate internal transition sheet, that we can modify without adressing each particular chassis, that have a quirk.
1 Quirk Point =
5.0% Structure Strength
4.0% Armor Strength
12% Component Structure
9% Component Armor
1,5% E/M/B Weapon Cooldown
2,0% E/M/B Weapon Heat Reduction
2,5% E/M/B Weapon Range
3,0% E/M/B Weapon Accuracy
And so on for every possible quirk there is.

Then we distribute the points, that we've established for each variant of the chassis, with a guideline in its role. It order to differentiate between the variants, we separate the total quirk point pool into Primary Role and Secondary Feat pools, with ratio of about 6/4 to 8/2, so a variant with total point pool of 35 will get 25 point for it's primary role and 10 points to a secondary pool. Secondary pool is used to give a variant quirks of other quirk aspects. A Chassis can have primary role of Mobility, but each variant of this chassis will also get secondary bonuses to Defense, Firepower and Sensors, depending on how fitting and beneficial these quirks will be to that variant.

We carefully consider how much each quirk impacts the stats of a variant in order not to strike too soft or hard. If the resulting quirks are too small, we apply additional negative quirks to get a return of extra points to get quirks with more significant values. If they're too large, then we redistribute values of one quirk into several quirks with lower values instead. If the established point-to-effect values are seem to be off as a trend, we modify the internal equations sheet.

Then we have something we can actually test on a PTS...

Edited by DivineEvil, 14 September 2015 - 11:09 PM.

[Angry Kylo Ren]

Rhino - are you reacting to one of the replies to my thread? Or the original thread? Nowhere did I mention 'omnipodding' mechs...am not really in-line with the response in which someone proposed using skill trees to allow you to define your own mech's role...so i think you confused someone else's reply to my thread as my own.

Divine - think we have very similar concepts of how to approach with a slightly different philosophy. I would be fine if PGI approached from either my angle or yours, but as long as they had a very clear ANGLE and methodology to their quirking.

If they followed your approach I'd find it very easy to judge and evaluate the different roles and quirks and see how PTS is going and give constructive feedback.

The way it is now I have no idea how to give proper feedback at all. =/

Edited by makbeer, 14 September 2015 - 11:54 PM.

[DivineEvil]

makbeer, on 14 September 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

Rhino - are you reacting to one of the replies to my thread? Or the original thread? Nowhere did I mention 'omnipodding' mechs...am not really in-line with the response in which someone proposed using skill trees to allow you to define your own mech's role...so i think you confused someone else's reply to my thread as my own.

Divine - think we have very similar concepts of how to approach with a slightly different philosophy. I would be fine if PGI approached from either my angle or yours, but as long as they had a very clear ANGLE and methodology to their quirking.

If they followed your approach I'd find it very easy to judge and evaluate the different roles and quirks and see how PTS is going and give constructive feedback.

The way it is now I have no idea how to give proper feedback at all. =/

Word. The details might be different, but the general idea of our concepts are effectively the same. That methodology have appeared when I've heard from Paul how they're going to weight mechs with those four pillars in mind. It's funny how you've came to the same conclusions as I did when they've abolished their own standards.

The names of some quirks are not good. The amount and disparity of quirks are not good. The reasoning behind them is really unclear. The font color of negative quirks is irritating. Who really cares? That mish-mash of random quirks is untestible. The top-it-all issue, is that there's obviously no methodology, no philosophy established, that would lead PGI to the conclusive goal. Without it, all the miscallenous issues of words, colors and numbers are irrelevant. Without it, there's no point to even launch any PTS sessions.

Edited by DivineEvil, 15 September 2015 - 12:36 AM.