Reading this thread really lifted my spirits as it's clear that there are people out there who both care and are saying the same sorts of things that I am. To echo the sentiments of Smoke Dancer (who also happens to be my brother...) logic and mathematics are the way to "the truth" of where MWO has gone wrong.
Okay, so I ran out of time at about page 9, so apologies if I restate anything...
Three Laws of Good Gaming
I want to offer the following observations about gaming (that "they" don't put in the manual, but "experienced" gamers know instinctively):
1. Games do not need to be complex to be fun
- It is a matter-of-fact that some of the most popular games in the world are the most simple
2. Any game with a 'random' element is an exercise is statistical analysis
- The primary requirement for a games designer at Games Workshop is "understanding of statistics and the ability to use a spreadsheet".
- Where games have have a random element the games that people enjoy the most and consider "good" stand up best to statistical analysis.
- In computer science, Backgammon is a "solved problem"; even though it contains a random element, it is possible to write a computer program that, partly through statistical analysis, can beat a human player consistently.
3. One of the reasons games are fun is that they offer a highly constrained environment, that is isolated from reality
- In REALITY about 75% of the population of the world would lose games against me because I could JustKillThem™ and win by default (I'm big, strong and reasonably intelligent). In a game of dice, where killing is explicitly ruled out, anyone has an equal chance of beating me (cheating excluded etc, etc.).
- Cheating breaks fun, because it then becomes about real life, rather than about a constructed situation with clear constraints.
- This is why exploiting unclear constraints is also often considered 'cheating', although it may be called something else; "bearding" or "being beardy" is the one I use (think man with grey beard poring over rulebooks to find every little loophole...)
To steal from Asimov, I shall call these my 3 laws of Good Gaming (you actually need a couple more, but 3 will do for this post).
First thing I want you to do, is to consider
why BattleTech (the table-top game) is so popular. While it certainly doesn't satisfy the 1st law, I would assert that it
absolutely satisfies the 3rd (there are even different "levels" of rules for use in organised tournaments).
What about the 2nd law? I would argue that, based on my personal experience, the 2nd law is an absolute requirement for any game that uses dice; that the table top game continues to be played and continues to be considered fun, anecdotally, points to that it satisfying the 2nd law.
From my own, limited, analysis I can
demonstrate that BattleTech
DOES satisfy the 2nd law (at least in terms of the basic IS weapons) and that the elements (weapons) that don't are
exactly the things that experienced players recognise as being flawed (the AC/2 and AC/5 are specific examples).
This is important as it means that it doesn't really matter what you have, only how you use it.
Where the Dev's went Wrong
Firstly, it is obvious that the developers are
NOT applying rigourous, accurate statistical analysis to the game design. Many of the posts on this topic make that clear (or that they are analysing the wrong things). This is at the heart of most complaints and this thread particularly. Someone (I think it was MCXL) talked about perceptions and made some absolutely accurate observations - perceptions can be a problem, which is why you
need to be able to
show that things
are balanced.
They forgot the 1st law. The best games of BattleTech I've had were using stock IS 'mechs, with only basic technology (
NO Gauss, CASE, DHS, etc.). If they had done it right, the game would be equally
fun with stock 'mechs or customised ones. I would argue that this is exactly where they should have started; get the game working & fun/balanced with stock IS 'mechs
then add customisation.
They also
SPECTACULARLY failed to adhere to the 3rd law: Gaussapult, anyone? While it's not 'cheating' it is most definitely
not 'in the spirit of the game'; it's beardy. People
know it.
Even the people who use them and would rather quit than admit it,
know it.
Never Discuss a Problem Without Offering a Solution
What would I do?
First and foremost, the development process needs to shift to a Scrum/Kanban approach, specifically, you put in one feature at a time and only when it's ready. The dev's need to stop adding half-finished features that don't work. It's inefficient and destructive for a long-lived project like MWO.
They also need to step-back and re-analyse (or just analyse?) what is needed (a.k.a. Minimum Marketable Feature Set). If they did it properly, I'm pretty sure they'd quickly find that 'mech customisation is actually low down on the list (yes, it is something you'd want, but it's actually not as important as things like diverse game modes and the basic balance that this thread is about).
They need to just work with canonical universe etc.
until they have introduced game modes that
require a change. I'm sorry, but basic take & hold does NOT need you to break-away from the basics of the BT universe (360° sensor, etc.)
On the same lines, it would help if they understood the basic, fundamental premises of the universe. For example, ALL 'mechs are about 12m tall. This is a fundamental principle, departure from which, just breaks
everything.
What am I talking about? In MWO the Atlas is
at least 4 to 6 times larger than the Jenner (in volume), yet a medium laser takes up the same amount of space... Huh?!? A Hunkback is twice the size of a Jenner (at least) and yet a standard 200-rated engine takes up the same amount of space... WTF?!? Did you also wonder why Jenners are so hard for larger 'mechs to kill? This is your answer.
Doubling armour was
absolutely the wrong decision. The whole point of the AC/20 is that it's a scary weapon - most stock 'mechs under 55 or 60 tons will only be able to take a hit (and have armour left) on their CT... but it also weighs a ridiculous amount and has a really short range. And gets 5 ammo per ton. And the ammo explodes if you take a critical...
Doubling armour in and of itself, makes the AC/20 redundant, because it can no longer do the job it was designed for; it no longer has that fear-factor. Others have pointed out the effects of doubling armour, but this is the one they always forget. It would have been far better to have reduced weapon damage (except for the big-hitters, like PPC and AC's, as that's they're whole reason for being). You could simply have doubled (or more) their cycle times to compensate... and that's assuming that you don't have accuracy problems...
And before you start, please don't talk about fractional accounting and all that, it's a myth. 100000 - 10000 takes just as long to work out as 100 - 1 and once you add fractional accounting (which they already have) adding a factor of 2 doesn't do anything meaningful.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with the point about it being "boring" having a 10 second cycle. There are very few 'mechs with only one weapon and those that do were
designed as skirmishers, where fire-move-fire is what it's all about and where having a 10 second cycle time wouldn't be a problem. All other 'mech designs have multiple or a variety of weapons, where skilled pilots would just chain their weapons at intervals, both to sustain their fire and manage heat.
Above all else, they should stop "tweaking" and only make changes that are considered and balanced against everything else. Remember:
damage goes down, as well as up!
Edited by Lazy Eye, 13 November 2012 - 03:49 PM.
11
ArmyOfWon, on 10 November 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:
