118 replies to this topic

[RedMercury]

Why are there so many gameplay problems with MWO?

FASA's Battletech was far from perfect, but it was a heck of a lot better than the balance MWO has.

I'm not going to offer solutions in this post, there are plenty suggested by people far more insightful than me, and there are indeed very difficult design choices needed. I just want to point out the balance problems which logically follow because of the design decisions of MWO, because it deviated from Battletech.

The point I want to drive home is that deviation from Battletech led to alternative designs, some of which were bad. These bad design decisions necessitated further deviation from Battletech and further bad design decisions, in order to balance various aspects of the game.

When you make one seemingly small change in one aspect of the game, for example to adapt it to be a 3D shooter, you affect balance all over the place, because balance is an interconnected web. Any seemingly small change can have a global effect, with unintended and unplanned consequences. Fixing these problems often leads to additional problems, problems you didn't even know could happen.


1. Weapon cooldown. A standard Battletech round represents 10 seconds of real time. Movement, heat dissipation, and weapon recycling times are all based on this. By making weapons recycle in 2 to 4 seconds, the effective firing frequency was increased up to 4x, (to make the game more arcade-like, because MWO is a thinking man's shooter). This broke:

A. balance between heat generation and heat dissipation [Result: everyone runs hot]

B. balance between heat intensive (energy) weapons and low heat (ammo) weapons, which are heavier.

C. Ammo counts [Result: ammo runs out sooner]

D. Balance between fast mechs which rely on speed to avoid firepower, and slower mechs, since fast mechs can now be shot at more often [Result: lights are less survivable]


2. Pin point damage when firing many weapons simultaneously. This made mechs very easy to kill. This destroyed the balance of:

A. armor vs mobility vs firepower (which is basically, the core of mech design) [Result: meta where pin point damage is king]

B. pin point weapons (energy and autocannons) versus missiles and LBX [Result: LRMs, SRMs and LBXs need buffs to be relevant, ghost heat, Gauss delay]

C. amount of protection needed for various body parts (e.g. head, CT) [Result: buffed head armor and internals needed, low average amount of damage per kill]


3. Armor increased by 2x. This is required to fix #2. But this, in turn, breaks balance between

A. armor vs mobility vs firepower. Armor and firepower back in balance, but mobility gets the shaft. Speed costs mass, just like guns. If guns fire twice as often (even if effect is the same due to armor buff, they have the potential to hurt, versus 0 potential if a skilled pilot uses speed to go in and out during cooldown), speed should be twice as valuable per ton as well. [Result: light mechs are less useful as skirmishers]

B. ammo counts versus armor. [Result: ammo weapons are hurt because they need more tonnage/critspace for more ammo]


4. Not using most Battletech heat penalties. This is required because of #1. This, in turn, breaks balance between:

A. high heat weapons vs low heat weapons [Result: laser vomit]

B. mechs with high reserve firepower versus mechs with lots of heat dissipation. Though due to customization, who cares about stock mechs? "Screw the lore!" [Result: unless you are a brawler, front load your damage]

C. fighting while remaining in line of sight vs fighting with intermittent line of sight. Since you don't have to roll for a shutdown chance after an alpha, just hide and cool down. [Result: hill humping, poking, and poptarting]


5. Giving internal components health, spreading laser critical checks across the entire hitscan. This breaks:

A. SRM and LBX (and lesser extent, MGs and AC2s ) are niche weapons for finding criticals, now they are useless in that niche. [Result: no one uses LBX, SRMs need buffs to stay relevant]

B. Large damage weapons versus small damage weapons. In Battletech, a PPC was good for punching holes, but not as good for getting criticals. Now it is good at both, e.g. better than a pair of ML.

C. Number of criticals is lower than what one would expect in real Battletech, since components have health and critical hits are spread evenly. This relatively benefits mechs with more internal structure, e.g. heavies.

D. Reduces risk from having armor destroyed with only slight internal damage, e.g. shot in the back. This relatively hurts fast mechs, hurts flanking as a strategy. [Encourages front loading of armor, ignore minor threats to the rear, deathball/nascar]


6. Shooting LRMs without line of sight, without needing a designated spotter who cannot fire othwerise. Increasing LRM range to 1000m. This makes LRMs very powerful weapons. They bring firepower without locality and line of sight. It's like your team's LRM boats are all riding on top of your fastest light mech. To balance this:

A. LRM speed is reduced, which makes them less useful as direct fire weapons. [Result: no LRMs in Tier 1]

B. ECM is made to counter LRM spotting. This ironically makes LRMs useless when ECM is present. [Result: no LRMs in Tier 1, LRMs are feast or famine, depending on whether ECM is present]

C. AMS has to be buffed to counter LRMs


7. Putting Clan mechs on equal footing as IS mechs and expect players to be happy with asymmetrical power without asymmetrical incentives.

A. To keep them competitive, IS mechs need magic upgrades to weapon systems. But at least these changes are more "local" and spread less badness in terms of balance.


8. Lack of melee or rules preventing collisions. I know this is hard to get right. But it is a core part of Battletech. Without it:

A. IS mechs are further disadvantaged comapred to Clan

B. Heavies mechs are disadvantaged comapred to light

C. Mechs with hand actuators get no benefit for those lost critical spaces

D. balance between brawling vs plinking is broken

E. jump jets are less useful for close quarters combat



There's probably more, but I'm tired.

[Johnny Z]

Irrelevant. The combat and action in this game is great. Thats what made this game greats since closed beta and is basically unmatched online. I can think of one other game as entertaining for fps and its whole theme sucks compared to Battletech/Mechwarrior.

This isnt a board game and Im not sure why some cannot grasp that, its as simple as can be.

BOARD GAME MECHANICS CANNOT BE USED FOR A FPS SIM COMPUTER GAME BY DEFINITION.

Minor adjustements aside, the game is in a good place. The addition of info warfare(hopefully as a side addition rather than over reaching for "reasons"), balancing and maybe slightly longer TTK will be straight up improvements.

Additions to the sim, like pilot eject animation will also be huge improvements. This will even improve the sense of scale for instance.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 October 2015 - 10:37 AM.

[Sarlic]

Johnny Z, on 09 October 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

Irrelevant. The combat and action in this game is great. Thats what made this game game greats ince closed beta and is basically unmatched online. I can think of one other game as entertaining for fps and its whole theme sucks compared to Battletech/Mechwarrior.

This isnt a board game and Im not sure why some cannot grasp that its as simple as can be.

BOARD GAME MECHANICS CANNOT BE USED FOR A COMPUTER GAME BY DEFINITION.

Minor adjustements aside, the game is in a good place. The addition of info warfare(hopefully as a side addition rather than over reaching for "reasons"), balacing and maybe slightly longer TTK will be straight up improvements.

Base game is good. The rest is wasted potential.

[Johnny Z]

Sarlic, on 09 October 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

Base game is good. The rest is wasted potential.

This to.

[Ultimax]

This idea has come up so many times, and one thing that I've learned is that some players have a warped perception of how long their mechs get to live because table top games take a really long time.



So, tell me, just how long do the actual simulated battles last?

You have a 10s turn, so Total Average Turns x 10s / 60s = Total Battle Time (in minutes)


So how many turns would an average battletech battle take? (do you need to adjust for number of mechs? probably - I'm sure some BT expert can enlighten).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 October 2015 - 08:55 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

but mobility gets the shaft.

not really. mobility is the reason heavies are a better weight class than assaults.

mobility is more important in MWO than it was in tabletop. mobility keeps you alive in MWO. And armor is less important in MWO than tabletop because convergence makes armor pretty much meaningless. having hardpoints that require minimal exposure, good hitboxes, good torso twist, and being able to evenly spread damage is more important than having more armor.

Quote

Heavies mechs are disadvantaged comapred to light

lol wut? heavies are easily the best weight class in the game. every other weight class is disadvantaged compared to heavies, they blend the perfect mix of all attributes.

Edited by Khobai, 09 October 2015 - 09:00 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Ultimatum X, on 09 October 2015 - 08:53 AM, said:

This idea has come up so many times, and one thing that I've learned is that some players have a warped perception of how long their mechs get to live because table top games take a really long time.



So, tell me, just how long do the actual simulated battles last?

You have a 10s turn, so average turns x 10s / 60 = Total Battle Time


So how many turns would an average battletech battle take? (trying to get as close to 12v12 as possible)

Maybe break it down into DPS survivability. X mech can survive 9DPS for 9 seconds (the 10th kills), This thought just now occurred to me so I haven't explored it just yet, but wanted to get it out there. DPS and second combos as well as individual components instead of the mech as a whole.

[FupDup]

Ultimatum X, on 09 October 2015 - 08:53 AM, said:

This idea has come up so many times, and one thing that I've learned is that some players have a warped perception of how long their mechs get to live because table top games take a really long time.



So, tell me, just how long do the actual simulated battles last?

You have a 10s turn, so average turns x 10s / 60 = Total Battle Time


So how many turns would an average battletech battle take? (trying to get as close to 12v12 as possible)

I will provide my anecdotes that while playing Mechwarrior: Tactics (a sort of TT emulator with some missing features) I could resolve a battle between two assault lances of stock Awesomes (3 PPCs + 1 SL) in about 10-12 turns or so. Thus, it would take about 2 minutes for them to kill each other. Some of that time was spent just getting into position, however...

Note that this was using pure 3025 tech, no DHS, no Endo, no Clans, etc. With those new 3050+ items added in, I'm sure it would be over much faster.

----------------

@ The thread in general, the thing to remember is that some of MWO's specific mechanics have caused issues, yes, but at the same time we have also INHERITED several problems from Tabletop (e.g. FASA's fault). Perhaps later in a few hours (gotta go soon) I'll make a list.

[Decadre]

1 - I recall during Beta seeing discussions why damage wasn't divided up based on it's cooldown time during the TT 10 second intervals. So for instance, the AC/10 does 10 damage with a 2.5 second cooldown. They would argue to make each round do 2.5 damage, and each shot add .75 heat (TT rules ac/10 adds 3 heat).

2 - Never seen the original statement, but I keep seeing people mention that the Devs stated in the past that non-convergence didn't work as the hit-gen couldn't handle it.

3 - Because of 1, 2, and the design chosen by the Devs, Mechs susposedly dropped like Tin Cans in seconds without double the armor in Alpha Testing.

4, 5, 8 - Who knows? Lack of Dev resources? Software/Hardware limitations? No interest from teh Devs?

6 - I know you can dumb fire LRMs, I believe you just have to aim downwards(?). Likely would need some sort of aiming mode ala Artillery mode in WoT and Armored Warfare which once again brings up Dev Resources, interest, etc.

7 - Ah one of the holy grails arguments of TT and MwoMercs. Do you really think a PvP FPS could survive by sticking to it's TT Lore rules regarding the imbalance of IS -vs- Clans? How do you expect new players to stick with the game and build credits when they would get beaten down severely every time by Clan mechs? Don't we have enough problems with the new player experience?

[Ultimax]

cdlord, on 09 October 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

Maybe break it down into DPS survivability. X mech can survive 9DPS for 9 seconds (the 10th kills), This thought just now occurred to me so I haven't explored it just yet, but wanted to get it out there. DPS and second combos as well as individual components instead of the mech as a whole.

DPS is too subjective.

In MWO, it's extremely rare for two teams to just square off in the open and let their guns rip until one side is gone.

That would be raw DPS, much like an MMO boss battle.



Average turns is the abstract - it's for movement, firing, etc.

We do that stuff too in MWO.


Just because my AC 20 recycles every 4s, doesn't mean I can always fire it every 4s. There's time spent taking cover, moving with the team, finding a target, aiming/leading, etc.


So just to put this in perspective, if the average battle tech battle of 12 mechs vs mechs lasted FIFTY turns, that is:


50 turns x 10s = 500s / 60s = 8.3 minutes spent in battle


Would a 12v12 BT game last 50 turns on average? (I don't know)

[LameoveR]

RedMercury, on 09 October 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

6. Shooting LRMs without line of sight, without needing a designated spotter who cannot fire othwerise. Increasing LRM range to 1000m. This makes LRMs very powerful weapons. They bring firepower without locality and line of sight. It's like your team's LRM boats are all riding on top of your fastest light mech. To balance this:

A. LRM speed is reduced, which makes them less useful as direct fire weapons. [Result: no LRMs in Tier 1]

B. ECM is made to counter LRM spotting. This ironically makes LRMs useless when ECM is present. [Result: no LRMs in Tier 1, LRMs are feast or famine, depending on whether ECM is present]

C. AMS has to be buffed to counter LRMs

What a ridiculous nonsense. This will make lurms much more useless than it's now.

[Lootee]

You said it man.

Broken LRMs needing broken Jesusbox needing broken TAG, broken BAP, broken PPCs to all hard counter each other is the reason I quit playing this crap.

I didn't put LRMs on any of my mechs because they are simply not viable. This steaming pile claims to be 'a BattleTech' game, but no not really. The only thing worth a crap here is the artwork and 3D models, which HBS will put to good use in a real BattleTech game.

Edited by Lootee, 09 October 2015 - 09:38 AM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Johnny Z, on 09 October 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

This isnt a board game and Im not sure why some cannot grasp that, its as simple as can be.

BOARD GAME MECHANICS CANNOT BE USED FOR A COMPUTER GAME BY DEFINITION.

Maybe you did not notice, but you play video game based on TT game. You can always look at left top corner as a reminder.

The problem is not TT, problem is to translate TT system to FPS system smart enough.
First example of stupidity and ignorance of TT result in worst outcome you can find with ECM mechanics.
Almost in all cases ignoring TT lead to the worst end effect. If you base the thing on something you better keep with it, in other way no wonder that the damn thing don`t work if you ignore half of design plan.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 09 October 2015 - 09:47 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Were not the boosted rates of fire initially based on the Solaris VII supplemental rules?

Which isn't to say I don't think they broke the game in several ways (TtK, heat, etc.), just that they may have closer ties to TT than you thought.

[Johnny Z]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 09 October 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

Maybe you did not notice, but you play video game based on TT game. You can always look at left top corner as a reminder.

The problem is not TT, problem is to translate TT system to FPS system smart enough.
First example of stupidity and ignorance of TT result in worst outcome you can find with ECM mechanics.
Almost in all cases ignoring TT lead to the worst end effect. If you base the thing on something you better keep with it, in other way no wonder that the damn thing don`t work if you ignore half of design plan.

Well I agree totally that this game should reflect the spirit of the original board game. Which had balanced tech for instance.

Arguements for TT depend on which parts and which additions to TT people like most.

Compare TOR gameplay to its origins which is the movies. Any similarity at all? Nearly none. Compare Mechwarrior Online to its origins and its very close, as close as a multi player game can be in my opinion minus many missing elements(like pilot eject) and the need for some improvements.

If they add green heal beams like some potentially good games did or pink clouds when using jump jets and green sparkles when turning on MASC then this game is going in the same direction so many others went and this forum will be in complete melt down.

3PV turned out ok but the forum meltdown over it was hilarious. I nearly fell out of my chair watching this and I posted it on the feedback topic and it got deleted. 100's and 100's of pages over multiple topics.

This may not be as funny now but at the time I have rarely laughed so hard.

https://www.youtube....e&v=7E1E1Wc0s8o

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 October 2015 - 10:07 AM.

[Golden Vulf]

What if 10-33% of damage you do to any part of the mech was spread out to other parts? You'll still do most of the damage to where you hit.

Kind of the way the clan ER PPC works, instead of doing 15 points of damage to a single part you hit, 5 points of that is spread out to the surrounding locations. I don't understand why 15 pinpoint damage is fair for a Gauss Rifle, but not for the Clan ER PPC, but it does cut down on pinpoint damage.

It could even be on a case by case basis. Lasers could spread 20% damage around, SRMs might be fine with 0% spread since they spread damage already. LBX could also have 0% spread since the pellets already spread out unless you are very close, the way shotguns work.

IS single shot Autocannons could have 20% spread, the Clan Autocannons with the stream could make do with 10%. Gauss Rifles might sit at 33% similar to Clan ER PPCs.

Clan ER PPCs would remain the same at 33% or maybe boosted up to 40%, IS PPCs could do with a 10% spread since they do less damage.

Just shooting out ideas. Maybe it is too abhorrent a change. Is this too much like that 'cone of fire' from CoD people detest? I wouldn't know since those games aren't my cup of tea. But it is good enough for LRMs and Clan PPCs, maybe it is good enough for other weapons.

In case you weren't familiar with Tabletop rules *gasp*, LRMs do damage in 5-point chunks. So if 13 out of 20 missiles hit from your LRM 20, you would roll to see where 5 points of damage is dealt, then roll again for the 2nd 5 points of damage, then roll again for the final 3 points of damage.

So LRMs are already kind of doing this spread mechanic except for cases where you fire at a mech with a huge section of torso, like a King Crab or Dire Wolf.

Edited by Golden Vulf, 09 October 2015 - 10:19 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

At the very beginning of closed beta they tried TT values for everything and it just didn't work. Don't remember why exactly and with clan cheese those reasons probably aren't even relevant anymore.

[KuroNyra]

Johnny Z, on 09 October 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Well I agree totally that this game should reflect the spirit of the original board game. Which had balanced tech for instance.

Arguements for TT depend on which parts and which additions to TT people like most.

Compare TOR gameplay to its origins which is the movies. Any similarity at all? Nearly none. Compare Mechwarrior Online to its origins and its very close, as close as a multi player game can be in my opinion minus many missing elements(like pilot eject) and the need for some improvements.

If they add green heal beams like some potentially good games did or pink clouds when using jump jets and green sparkles when turning on MASC then this game is going in the same direction so many others went and this forum will be in complete melt down.

3PV turned out ok but the forum meltdown over it was hilarious. I nearly fell out of my chair watching this and I posted it on the feedback topic and it got deleted. 100's and 100's of pages over multiple topics.

This may not be as funny now but at the time I have rarely laughed so hard.

https://www.youtube....e&v=7E1E1Wc0s8o

Funny thing about 3PV.

That feature was present in MW2, and MW4, probably MW3 aswell.

[Kristian Radoulov]

Cool post except MW titles have had these weapon CDs since forever and no one ever complained then. A for effort though.

[Alistair Winter]

8- In Battletech, some mechs are inherently more valuable than others and in fair matches you won't see Dire Wolves matched up against an equal number of Awesomes, you won't see upgraded mechs with XL engines, Endo and DHS matched on even terms with cheaper tech variants, etc.

In other games, there's a risk-reward calculation based on things such as repair & rearm, but we no longer have that in MWO. 99% of the MWO population considered R&R a bad thing and 99% of the MWO population were dead wrong. IMHO