1
Starting with what we have today on production:
#1 Global Weapon Balance
First and foremost, balance the IS and Clan weaponry at the global level. For each type of weapon (the IS and the Clan counterpart), modify stats that balance them well at the statistical level. Example: One version gets longer range but longer duration or runs hotter. Or one gets a faster recycle time but does slightly less damage.
There are many weapon characteristics already present to choose from that can be used to create interesting, diverse balance that results in a more level playing field across the board than what we have today. Today the weapon imbalances are very obvious. While they were well-intended for lore reasons, they are not practical for a real-time, skill-based arena shooter like MWO and will need to be adjusted to create better balance.
The IS:Clan weapon imbalance is the primary thing holding back the ability to balance this game successfully and the cause of almost all of the extra work Paul has been doing to try to counterbalance it with quirks and the new balance pass.
Balance the weapons using neutral mechs that have no weapon quirks (pos or neg), as that will be the baseline from which everything else, including quirks, will be determined, and the goal at the end of the day is to almost never need quirks, rather than having tons of quirks on every mech. This will also make quirk management much easier down the road.
#2 Negative Quirks
Second, alongside the first step, get rid of all negative quirks on all mechs. This is necessary for several reasons: First, after balancing the weapons globally, most of the Clan negative weapon quirks will no longer be necessary. Second, negative quirks as a whole are a thing that, in general, should never be needed. They are taking something away from what the mech would naturally be capable of. This is almost always a sign that a problem exists somewhere in the other aspects of the chassis model or stats and hasn't been addressed properly there.
Removing all negative quirks is also an important step due to what we saw on the PTS last weekend with negative quirks being fundamentally over-used to force mechs into specific categories (please don’t call them roles, they aren’t actually full-fledged roles, just playstyles).
Shoehorning mechs into specific playstyles by hurting their ability to be used in any other way, forces players to only play them that one specific way, rather than allowing players to retain the freedom they have today to build and play their mechs any way they want within the natural constraints of a mech (tonnage, slots, max engine rating, equipment capability, and hardpoints).
Currently, ad-hoc playstyles are created by the player primarily through weapon choice and engine choice. For any given mech, a player can choose to go with heavier armament and a smaller engine that is slower and less maneuverable, or less firepower but a larger engine that moves faster and with more agility. A player may also choose a loadout of weapons with a specific range to further differentiate their play style. In the proposed balance pass, PGI takes away most of this flexibility from the player by saddling each mech with massive amounts of negative quirks, most often maneuverability quirks that prevent that mech from ever being as maneuverable on the battlefield as it should be regardless of the engine placed in it.
That is basically adding a new and artificial element to the constraints of a mech that directly contradicts its natural constraints (listed above). This unequivocally reduces the ways in which that particular mech can be used, it is contrary to the concept of MechWarrior games as a whole and the customizability available within the Mech Lab in particular, and it presents a dim outlook for the customizability of mechs going forward to see such heavy-handed regulation. The good news is it is completely unnecessary if we follow the steps proposed here.
#3 Review Balance. Adjust Positive Quirks Accordingly
After steps 1 & 2 are accomplished, we get to the third step: Review the mechs in the game (in actual combat conditions) to see how they balance out with steps 1 & 2 in place. It is quite likely those two steps alone have resolved the vast majority of the balance issues present in the game today. It is also possible that many of the more extreme IS weapon quirks will now actually be overpowered, and may need to be reduced (note: not necessarily removed, but reduced). Remember we balanced the weapons around a neutral performance state, so it is likely that toning down the extreme IS weapon quirks will be necessary in a world where weapons are better balanced. The quirks would still provide those mechs the same unique feel and playstyle they have today, but since the IS:Clan weapon balance has been improved, the quirks no longer need to be quite as dramatic.
This would result in IS mechs still having unique weapon characteristics similar to how they are today but since all weapons are better balanced, they don't need quite the same super low recycle time / super high DPS output. In relaxing those quirks, we've now increased TTK, since mechs are living longer thanks to better balanced weapons and reducing extreme weapon quirks.
Retaining the positive IS weapon quirks but in a reduced fashion will allow certain mechs to retain their unique characteristics that create a diverse array of play styles for IS mechs within each weight class and within each set of variants for a given chassis.
Cut the remaining the edge off any apex mechs that show themselves to be head and shoulders above the rest. If the top handful of mechs actually require negative weapon quirks it would not be the end of the world, but on the whole that should be a rare exception rather than a common occurrence. There should really only be a few quirk adjustments necessary at this point if steps 1 & 2 were done properly.
#4 Four Pillars Revised
Fourth, in light of step three, we should no longer need the negative aspects of the four pillars concept proposed in the PTS. Again, negative quirks don't actually create roles, they just restrict how mechs can be played by pigeonholing them into one specific playstyle each which reduces overall mech and gameplay diversity for the playerbase. It also creates needless complexity in the quirk set.
So if we want to keep the positive aspect of the four pillars concept as part of a future roles creation scheme, it can now be done without any negative quirks. Simply chart each mech on the four pillars based on where it stands today with only its positive quirks, assuming steps 1-3 above have been implemented. Then utilize the existing positive quirks they already have, and add additional positive structure and maneuverability quirks to specific underperforming mechs that need some help or would benefit from positive quirks that would help emphasize certain playstyles for each mech without removing the ability for the player to do other things with those mechs.
In all of these four steps, we also have the side benefit of further raising TTK (i.e., mechs live longer). By balancing the weapons, removing negative quirks that hinder mechs, reducing any outlier positive weapon quirks, and then adding additional structure or maneuverability boosts to certain underperforming mechs to help make them viable, we have created an environment where mechs that would die too fast in the current meta would survive much longer and present more of an equal threat to the enemy as the enemy poses to them today.
#5 Roles & Info Warfare
Fifth, after accomplishing the balance the game needs, address the concept of roles and information warfare separately, and as part of a subsequent, comprehensive delivery of actual roles to this game. This is a topic that deserves its own Command Chair write up, because this will require completely overhauling the Skills tab, turning it into a proper Roles selection tab, making significant changes to game modes to incentivize new role-based play and objectives, and some changes to maps to accommodate the game mode changes.
Only after that foundation is in place should we start considering introducing and messing with sensor quirks, ELINT/EW equipment changes and the like. Trying to work those in as part of the balance pass is not only making balance more complex than it needs to be, it is also confusing categories. Putting sensor changes in the midst of the balance pass is at best an attempt to resolve two completely different objectives (balance and roles) with one stone that isn’t big enough to actually resolve either one. And the end result is it causes extra work for both objectives.
Addendum: Why this matters and why we care
I hope this proposal can be given due consideration. There are many players like myself who have put countless hours and many dollars into playing and supporting this game, and we want nothing more than to see it succeed and stick around for many years to come. Based on the PTS and the comments after from Paul, Russ, and Phil, there are significant concerns that remain unaddressed. If we continue down the proposed path with only minor alterations, many players remain seriously concerned for the future of MWO.
The public outcry around the concerning aspects shown in the PTS was not just from the usual suspects, the squeaky wheels that are never satisfied. Rather, the type of players concerned and at risk for attrition as a result of the balance pass is far more diverse and includes a greater potential impact to the product's bottom line. Without reconsidering or refactoring this balance pass, there is attrition risk to a level that should be considered very carefully.
I believe I speak for many other long-time community members when I say that we don't mind investing time and energy into writing proposals like this because we enjoy MWO and want the best for it. We just hope the product leaders at PGI are willing to take our suggestions seriously. We have day jobs, we aren't paid to care, but we do care because we enjoy the product. We also spend way more time actually using the product (i..e, actually playing MWO) than probably anyone at PGI, so our perspective should hold some weight for that reason alone.
I'd certainly like to spend another three years with MWO and put as much money and time into those years as I have over the past three. Check my account details - and I'm sure there are many others who've spent just as much time and money as I have, if not more.
We want MWO to live to see a singleplayer PvE campaign; multiplayer lance-sized co-op PvE mission packs; a Solaris PvP combat arenas add-on with ranked ladders, mass spectating and c-bill wagering; more maps and game modes; full-fledged Community Warfare with lore tie-ins, benefits to planet ownership, progressive missions and enhanced gameplay; multiple timelines in MWO, a thriving player population, and much more.
But if we end up with anything close to what we saw in the PTS, the result is such a turnoff that I would be inclined to just leave this game entirely. That's how disappointing it was and how completely broken it felt compared to what we have today. And I'm not talking about bugs, I'm talking about the overarching concepts like tons of negative quirks everywhere and heavily regulated playstyles, as already discussed earlier in this post. And for those of us who have invested so much, it hurts to experience that just as much as it might hurt to hear negative feedback to the PTS you guys likely spent a lot of time creating. We get that and we want to move the rebalance conversation forward in a positive direction, if you're open to engaging with us, too.
Edited by jay35, 17 September 2015 - 08:13 PM.
