No replies to this topic

[Lazy Eye]

... by your own calculations the 35 ton light 'mech (Jenner) has almost as much firepower as the 50 ton medium (Hunchback).

I wasn't one of the very first closed beta players, but I've been playing MWO a very long time (relatively speaking).

The most striking impression I have is that game play doesn't feel like it's improving patch-on-patch... if anything, my impression is the opposite; that it is actually getting worse. It also happens that I convinced my brother to play MWO (I actually paid for his founders package - more fool me); he is equally unimpressed with the progress of game play thus far.

So, what's broken?

All 'mechs should be about 12 metres tall.

Thanks to it's... misinterpretation... of one of the fundamental premises the BattleTech universe, MWO has managed to create a situation where smaller 'mechs are disproportionately powerful.

Before the trolls get going, this isn't an "anti light 'mech" post. I want light 'mechs to be useful, I want light 'mechs to have a role that requires me to think & play differently when I use them, but conversely, if I'm in a Hunchback or Centurion, I want to be thinking "I hope I don't run into something bigger", rather than "I hope I don't run into something other than another Centurion or Hunchback", as is the reality today.


In short: If a pilot with a reasonable level of skill can't, on average, kill something lighter, then you've done something very wrong.

It is almost impossible for an Atlas to kill a Jenner at close range, which, ironically, is the exact opposite of the canonical basis of the Atlas (and what would happen in a TT game...). Even medium 'mechs that would normally be expected to be escorts to assault's (such as the Hunckback and Centurion) struggle to kill Jenners.

There are clearly weapons that are "just better" than others

This is a case of self-optimisation (really fascinating subject; all games with large numbers of players are good for studying).

For those unfamiliar with the topic, this where a system finds it's own optimal configuration(s). In games, because people want to win, this means that if there are ways of playing (in this case 'mechs & weapons) that are better (improve chances of winning), then players will naturally gravitate towards them (unless you're a bit pathological like me, who insists on rocking the '20, even though it's the worst weapon on the game...)

To be fair to the devs they are faced with 2 challenges:

• The canonical weapons were broken to begin with
  
• Translating a monotonically timed (i.e. turn-based) into a dynamically timed (real-time) system.

It doesn't matter if "it works for me", the proof of this is in the fact that some weapons are more common than others (or people don't take certain 'mechs).

Fixing this is actually relatively straight forward: USE A SPREADSHEET.

After playing the table-top game and finding that AC 2s, 5s and 20s were just not as good as some of the alternatives, I embarked on an extensive analysis. Within a couple of hours, I was able to demonstrate why the 2, 5 & 20 were so broken and why, when compared to each other, almost all the other weapons are balanced against each other.

Applying the same mathematical analysis (with benefit of real data gathered from hundreds of real games), it should be possible to very quickly arrive at weapon values that are balanced, placing players in a position where they can choose weapons based on preference/play style, rather than just what's "the best".

Put in proper heat build-up effects

Why do weapons generate heat? Balance. That's it. That is the only purpose of heat. It's about creating a trade-off, a negative effect for certain weapons.
In the table-top game, the heat scale is non-binary (it isn't just about "if you're too hot you shutdown"); there are a number of heat effects, from reduced speed, through targeting difficulties to ammo cooking-off. Far from being a complication or interesting addition, this is an intrinsic part of the whole system of balance, it is the failure to recognise this that led to much laser boating in particular.

Doubling armour was the wrong solution

Sure, it worked as a 'quick fix' to some of the early problems, but it's become a standard thing and is now exacerbating many of the game play problems. For one, it immediately negates the usefulness of the AC/20 (and doesn't help other heavy-hitters, such as the PPC and large laser).

The right solutions would be a combination of:

• Reducing damage of smaller weapons, such as small and medium lasers
  
• Increasing (dramatically) the cycle time of weapons, such as the gauss and AC/20.
  
• Altering the maximum range of weapons.

An interesting consequence of doubling armour, is that you make it more difficult to counter certain min/max combos, such as the Gaussapult; with normal armour values, the Gaussapult would still be effective, but not "overpowered", as it was/is.


Further analysis reveals that there are inconsistencies in the amount of structure / armour of 'mechs. In short, lighter 'mechs get more structure and armour than heavier ones (a lighter mech gets more points-per-ton, than a heavier one). An alternative I've explored is to ensure each 'mech receives 12 structure/ton, with an armour limit based on tonnage that equates to an armour-to-structure ratio of 3:1 for standard and increases to 3.33:1 for Ferro-Fibrous.

That said, this is based on the TT game, which has random hit locations; anecdotal experience shows this not to be the case in MWO. I would suggest that, as part of the translation from TT to simulator, the balance of armour/internal structure may need adjusting to compensate for the increased accuracy.

Take out the screen shake

It is disproportional and is a large bonus for lower-damage weapons that are, ironically, the least likely to impart the energy required to cause the effect in the first place.

It may be 'cool', but it has no basis in canon and has a dramatic impact on gameplay that doesn't feel like it's been considered.

For the love of God, put in 360 degree sensors

Look, I know you've explained this one to death, but the problem is you haven't proven it. A 'mech contains a ton (literally) of sensors, targeting and communications equipment - you won't even give players a rear-facing camera. How does that work?

It just doesn't make sense. Having a vast and massively expensive war machine with such an obvious (and easily fixable) vulnerability is completely unbelievable.

That's not MechWarrior, that's just plain, run-of-the-mill FPS. Is that what you want?

Maybe the problem is that I have unrealistic expectations that MWO would be something even close to; would build on the MW games I played and love?