First let me say that I appreciate you Daeron, your devotion to the Battletech brand and this game, as well as your candor and enthusiasm in approaching this task.
And to PGI, I see this as an effort on your part and a good start. Asking for help is rarely easy to do, same with taking a hard look at your self/product/etc.
The both of you are going to hear a lot of things, as I'm sure you're already aware, that're less than polite, but I urge you to not lose your nerve in the face of it all. Even venom(mostly) comes from a place of care that's been corrupted by frustration... but if they still care enough to post, they (again, mostly) still care. So please try to focus on that fact as the feedback mounts and, inevitably, varies in it's tone.
With that out of the way, lets get down to it. My suggestions are thus:
1. Ghost heat needs a serious revision. It is/was a clunky, awfully complex, and symptomatic-treatment "solution" to a bigger, deeper problem. I once heard a quote "A complex machine/solution is the mark of a bad engineer." I.E. you should strive for a simple, elegant solution rather than a large messy/clunky one. Ghost Heat is the Rube Goldberg device of solutions; a complex and arbitrary list of rules that requires an external resource to fully see/understand, with ever-shifting values and rules based on whack-a-mole balancing born by players simply shifting to the
next most effective loadout/grouping etc. As long as boating, group-fire, pinpoint-damage, and projectile speed synching are desirable and beneficial stats/styles to build toward, you will forever be chasing the next iteration and the next and the next as players seek to continually do
effectively the same thing, with a different loadout/mech/whatever and then need to balance that.
To that point, I suggest the implementation of a system, spoken of in the past, but ultimately decided against for whatever reason.
1a. Cone of Fire(CoF).
Now I know this got some pushback in the past because of the desire to "keep it skill-based" as far as aiming is concerned, and the aversion to introducing an "RNG" element to the game, but hear me out. The mechanics for CoF deviation are already in the game, you see it every time you fire while jump-jetting. So development cost in time for this should be quite short.
Additionally, it doesn't need to be as pronounced as while JJ'ing, in fact it should be variable. That's the whole point. The bigger the weapons discharge, the more deviation. This is also backed up by lore, iirc, as the Targeting Computer struggles to find firing solutions simultaneously. Speaking of Targeting Computers, this would give purpose to a basically defunct item. In almost no situations ever is a TC more beneficial than bringing several tones more weapons/ammo/heatsinks etc. Let TCs help counteract deviation. This will add another layer to the formula of heat efficiency vs burst damage, ammo weight vs longevity in combat, and so on, and will act as a counterbalance to boating tons(literally, heh) of weapons as players will have to factor in accuracy and effectiveness in bringing them to bare on the OpFor.
Pilots discharging their weapons more slowly also affects Time-To-Kill(TTK) as well as changing the feeling of combat closer to lore, the sense of firing salvos back and fourth in tense combat rather than "Oops I exposed myself at the wrong moment now half my mech is blown off in under a second, guess I'll play the entire rest of the match crippled or just death rush". It also makes peeking/sniping less effective, without abolishing it entirely, and lends itself to the more action-packed, brawling, chaotic playstyle most players say they're missing, rather than a mostly static snipe-fest that contributes to "NASCAR".
In summary, CoF is a resolution/solution to the pinpoint damage meta, burst damage meta, and Time-To-Kill.
It's also a tertiary balance against NASCAR meta, peeking/sniping meta, and unhealthy playstyles like frustration rushing.
All while encouraging a healthier, more exciting and lore-friendly playstyle.
1b. Hardpoints. (ala MW4)
This is a tougher one, as it would require an almost complete overhaul of customization and I realize we're likely too far along for that, but it would be greatly helpful in creating not only diversity in loadouts, but identity in mechs.
I know that Quirks were introduced to address that latter point, but frankly most of them are too small to make a difference, and those that do, approach the danger of creating overpowered loadouts, or a meta of "only this loadout or you're 'wrong'."
It was a good attempt at salvaging the situation, but realistically can anyone
actually feel 5% turn speed? Come on.
Unfortunately, as I warned in Alpha, not having hardpoint sizes has created a "Tonnage bucket" feeling with many chassis, with meta loadouts being used by so many, and across various chassis, they all feel quite similar in performance and combat. (This is exacerbated by a lack of weapon diversity relative to chassis diversity, but that's a later point.)
As funny as an "AC20 Raven" is, we all know it's absurd to shove a battleship-sized cannon where a Machinegun barrel used to be. Likewise, taking a cannon of that size out and being told you can only fit a single, tiny MG in that same space, is silly.
Some mechs (mostly Clan) skirted this issue by using "baked in" internals to limit weapon sizes, like the Kit Fox torsos being too small for Autocannons, and that somewhat sidestepped the logic and balance issues, but most mechs don't do this.
2. Quirks
If the ideas in 1b are not implemented for whatever reason, I propose an alternative; a way to improve Quirks.
Many people have expressed a desire for a "stock only" playlist/mode, mostly for the reasons of getting away from the meta loadouts and/or to get closer to a lore-like experience.
I suggest encouraging stock loadouts by way of heavily quirking them across the board, either by adding specific quirks for remaining stock, or removing existing quirks for deviating from it.
It's a bold idea, I know, and a difficult one; there's quite a gap in performance between stock and custom, but I believe it could be done "right".
Additionally, the changes proposed in 1a would
greatly diminish that gap by reducing the benefit of meta/boat builds in the first place, which would also narrow the gap between newer players and stock mechs and veterans with custom/meta builds.
In summary; more diversity, closer to lore, healthier new-player experience.
3. Weapons and/or Armor
In an effort to add both diversity to the game, as well as another layer of strategic complexity, I would like to see more weapons and armor choices added. Ferro isn't bad, but it's just a weight trade-off. I'd like to see Reflective and Reactive armors added, each offering a bonus against beam/ballistic weaponry respectively.
This will allow players to build to their strengths; For example, a light running Reflective armor to maximize it's defense against it's main weakness, beams. Assaults might chose to run Reactive armor to mitigate the heavy-hitting autocannon fire they couldn't hope to dodge. But most of all, it would
further discourage boating as you might be heavily penalized 1v1 against someone holding the metaphorical 'rock' armor to your 'scissors' weaponry.
Speaking of weaponry, there are many weapons in lore that could offer a welcome break from the meta. X-pulse lasers (continuous fire with heat ramp?) or Plasma Cannons (A PPC with Flamer effects, anyone?). Others offer strategic options; wanna see NASCAR stop?
Implement mines. >_>
MW:O has barely scratched the surface of the awesome weapons of lore, and if implemented properly, each can offer new opportunities for playstyles, strategy, diversity, specialization, and balance/counter-balance.
4. AMS.
The LRM debate and balance debacle? One. Easy. Fix.
Right now, AMS and LRMs are 'balanced' in a 'war of escalation' style, this encourages boating of either system and an unhealthy feast-or-famine performance; Either AMS>LRMs and they're useless, or LRMs>AMS and you get a miserable static game of cowering for your life in cover.
But what if it didn't have to be like that? What if AMS and LRMs could both be effective in equal measure, and bringing a
single AMS or a
single LRM5 didn't feel useless?
What if... instead of AMS destroying a set number of missiles from each volley, it destroyed a
percentage?
I give you....
Flak AMS, a system that increases in functionality in proportion to the prevalence of LRMs, while simultaneously not negating them entirely in small numbers.
Mind blown, right? The rest is up to you. Make all AMS work that way? Make it another type? Make them both equippable at once or not? That's up to you. You look at the idea, the numbers, test them, look at the statistics, etc. That's your thing.
5. Information Warfare.
If my section about CoF didn't make someone bristle, this probably will. This term has been thrown around countless times, and each time PGI over-promised and under-delivered. Lets see a use for the C3 system. Lets see a use for BAP besides being an ECM foil. Lets see active/passive radar.
Lets see...
-BAP being the only way to get an enemy mech's weapons loadout, then see that information disseminated by a C3 master/slave system across it's lance, and/or other lances.
-ECM scramble weapons locks, or throw out garbage data, or false-flag locks that make LRMers second-guess their targets.
-C3 systems required to share locks and spotting data.
How about an IFF jammer that makes you appear neutral to both sides, or mechs running passive radar for an ambush.
There's so many interesting and awesome opportunities here just sitting by the wayside. Lets give them their time to shine.
6. Consumables
Outside of a rebalance of these entirely, I'd like to see more diversity. Air/Arty are good, and UAV is a nice tool and can fit in with the idea above. But what else? I'd really like to see a mine drop, a scrambler beacon, a diversionary beacon, smoke screen... and those are just the easy ones.
How about a little PvE mixed in? How about a couple light vehicles or air units? A few attack VTOLs flying in from the edge of the map to a designated point or a few hovercraft/tanks dropped off by a dropship? Maybe the Clans could call in a Point of Elementals. Even a static turret emplacement drop. They could have middling armor, say just ten points on the air units, or 5 on the Elementals, but how awesome would it be to call in
actual air support, or watch the chaos in the enemy ranks as little power armors jump around taking potshots at them?
Static turrets have been in the game, as have non-static assets like dropships. It's not impossible to have something like this, and it would add another layer of awesome to the game.
Additionally, Coolshots need to be removed, as they allow players to supersede the already tenuous balance of heat/cooling/DPS efficiency in brawling.
7. Match balance/ELO
I'm not sure how much can be done here with MW:O's already dwindling playerbase, but the number one thing that drove me away from this game were the atrociously balanced games. Maybe one out of five games wasn't a landslide victory/loss, and in almost every single game, you had upwards of 50% of
both teams with <100 damage and 1-2 players with upwards of 1000 damage. Now I know that TTK is partially responsible for this, but when you're spectating players that can't hit a mech <200m in front of themselves, or are firing LRMs under their range, or standing there repeatedly firing Med Las at 800m... it becomes quite obvious that sheep are being thrown into the lion's den.
The skill matching system is either woefully ineffective at it's job, or there simply aren't enough players in the queue to create balanced matches without upping the queue time into unacceptable levels. I'm not sure which of those it is, and obviously nothing much can be done about one of them other than fixing up the game and hoping people come back/join up... but if there's
anything that can be done to optimize the skill ranking... it
NEEDS to be done.
Landslide victories are as hollow as landslide losses are frustrating, and Vets are just as fed up with both as the newbies that're having an awful time getting rolled.
Aside from all that, many of the ideas already listed are great; I especially like the tutorials update, heat management clarity, rescale(Phoenix Hawk, anyone?) and Dailies/Weeklies, which I think would help bring up/back player count and engagement.
However I do not like the laser color cosmetic idea; as fun as it would be to have, it would deny/remove crucial battlefield awareness. The rest sound great though - I'd pay money to get my Clan Commander voice a throat lozenge, he sounds in desperate need of one.
To be honest though, this really all comes down to follow-through, as many have already said. This isn't the first time PGI has asked for feedback, and it's
far from the first time it's been given.
Most of the list you've compiled has been presented to PGI by numerous people, in numerous ways, over several years, both invited and volunteered, along with potential solutions/fixes and suggestions for implementation. The fact it's
still on your list speaks to the situation very plainly.
You seem to be doing a great job compiling our feedback and they seem to be,
once again, asking for it...
Now we all just need to see
action.
-Edit for typos
Edited by Prince V, 11 November 2020 - 01:47 PM.
12
This topic is locked
Alreech, on 10 November 2020 - 09:25 AM, said:
