193 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

From wikipedia

Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields.

Starting this topic for a discussion of min-maxing as it relates to MWO.
Specifically what should be allowed to be min-max
ie Armor, Weapons/loadout, Engine.

I'll start off with what I percieve as min-maxing that IMO should be taken out of MWO that was allowed in previous mechwarrior games.
"armor points could be adjusted so one arm could have less armor points than the other arm"

This allowed micro-management of min/maxing that could protect a percieved strong right arm (with max right arm armor) and reduce the armor to (or almost) zero for the "useless/ cannon fodder" left arm.

IMO when doing armor allocation, you should not be allowed this and should have "balance" armor loadout.

[Vulpesveritas]

Anyone who min/maxes will get a NARC beacon to the knee from my lance, along with some cake, followed by death. That, or just a few AC/5 rounds to the cockpit, and/or missile pods.

[eZZip]

I imagine that min-maxing armor or engines wouldn't have large enough of an advantage to warrant removing the ability to do so.

[Belisarius1]

I'm not sure that we need so many mechlab related topics when they're really all talking about the same thing, but anyway.

Properly optimizing a design is a skill that I would be very disappointed to see removed. However, there's a difference between optimising a variant and completely altering its intended purpose, as a number of people have pointed out in a number of these threads.

Ensuring 'mechs have individual character, purpose and diversity is much more important than picking arbitrary things that should or should not be min-maxed. The two go hand in hand, but you're starting from the wrong end.

I agree that 'mechs with 0 armour on an unused limb in MW4 was stupid, but it's also a forest-for-the-trees kind of issue.

Edited by Belisarius†, 19 April 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Motionless]

Vulpesveritas, on 19 April 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Anyone who min/maxes will get a NARC beacon to the knee from my lance, along with some cake, followed by death. That, or just a few AC/5 rounds to the cockpit, and/or missile pods.

Isn't that the same thing that you plan on doing to people with less optimal mech designs?

Yeach, on 19 April 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

I'll start off with what I percieve as min-maxing that IMO should be taken out of MWO that was allowed in previous mechwarrior games.
"armor points could be adjusted so one arm could have less armor points than the other arm"

This allowed micro-management of min/maxing that could protect a percieved strong right arm (with max right arm armor) and reduce the armor to (or almost) zero for the "useless/ cannon fodder" left arm.

IMO when doing armor allocation, you should not be allowed this and should have "balance" armor loadout.

Okay, do you plan on giving any reason for this min/maxing not to be allowed?

[pursang]

I don't see the problem here. Min-maxing happens in every game that is populated with competitive players - and people who want to be competitive.

Edited by pursang, 19 April 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Motionless, on 19 April 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Isn't that the same thing that you plan on doing to people with less optimal mech designs?

Well, yes.

[GaussDragon]

People are naturally going to want to find the configuration that best suits/is optimized for their purpose. If you don't want people trying to discover good loadouts, why even bother having the mechlab in the first place? If PGI does the balance right, we'll see many good loadouts instead of just a few dominant ones.

[Gigaton]

If losing either side torso automatically destroys the respective arm as in TT, people would think twice about leaving side torso unarmoured.

Unarmoured arms could be discouraged if losing arm forced "piloting skill check" of sorts due to sudden loss of mass. Ie. it would usually cause you to stumble at least, or perhaps even fall down.

No idea what to do about asymmetric 'mechs, with only one side torso and arm armoured. Hardpoint system will probably discourage that, but I'd like to see some additional preventive measures. Perhaps acceleration/turning/accuracy penalties due to less-than-stellar stability?

Motionless, on 19 April 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Okay, do you plan on giving any reason for this min/maxing not to be allowed?

Now that you ask, I'm not quite to sure how to explain the reason some people (myself included) hate munchkins. Min-maxing/powergaming etc. does destroy fair amount of immerson, so that's significant part of it at least.

Edited by Gigaton, 19 April 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[That Guy]

there are two very simple ways to prevent munchkin(ing)/min maxing.

You select your mech BEFORE you get to the game lobby/ready room/ whatever they want to call the premission briefing. In MW4 people select the best mech for the map, and that mech is preciously tailored for that map. a city map, AC20 boats, SR stuff usually slow, an open map poptart sniper etc. If you pick your mech before you know your operating environment, it leaves the gamble up to you. it will most likely make people choose more generalist load outs more often to be safe. If you take a specialist (hunchie, catapult etc) its a little more of a gamble.
Its because of that tailoring that makes minmaxing so easy, and annoying. in MW4 there is really very little reason to take a generalist mech (in "pro" games at least) because you are not spec'd up and specialized. If in MWO we select our mech after we know the map, it lets people minmax much more easily (oh its big city, alright everyone grab yer hunchies!). If we select BEFORE, that minmax becomes a gamble, and less like the "i win" button.


good map design: If each map is big and varied enough, then any form of play should be viable as long as you have most of a functioning brain. IE dont noob rush a hill full of catapults over a couple of K of open ground with a hunchie, or try to knife fight that hunchie with the CAT. From the devs interviews and the small snippets of maps that we have seen, we should be good on this

[Motionless]

Gigaton, on 19 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Now that you ask, I'm not quite to sure how to explain the reason some people (myself included) hate munchkins. Min-maxing/powergaming etc. does destroy fair amount of immerson, so that's significant part of it at least.

I'm not sure what you mean by breaking 'immersion.' Do you mean from a lore/fluff perspective? I would think at some point in the BT universe people might figure out that an awesome's ppc arm is a little more valuable than its grabby hand arm and might decide an a-symmetrical armor layout to MATCH their a-symmetrical weapons layout would benefit them.

Also the word munchkin refers to people who act competitive in a non-competitive activity - while MWO is specifically being made as a video game that people compete against other players in.

[Morashtak]

The idea of leaving any location unarmored seems to be a two-edged sword;

1) Strip an arm and now it falls off with the first shot and any remaining damage could go directly to the corresponding torso location.
2) Strip an arm and re-allocate to the corresponding torso with any left over points added to the CT and onward to the other side.

Agree that there should be a penalty for this, maybe a rougher ride and/or erratic arm convergence might be the answer, but arms are going to fall off when damage limits are reached whether they were armored or not.

[pursang]

Motionless, on 19 April 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by breaking 'immersion.' Do you mean from a lore/fluff perspective? I would think at some point in the BT universe people might figure out that an awesome's ppc arm is a little more valuable than its grabby hand arm and might decide an a-symmetrical armor layout to MATCH their a-symmetrical weapons layout would benefit them.

Also the word munchkin refers to people who act competitive in a non-competitive activity - while MWO is specifically being made as a video game that people compete against other players in.

Exactly. Do any of you doubt that in reality military personnel in the field would attempt to maximize the good and minimize the bad of the equiptment that they are given? This is just common sense people; there's nothing sinister here.

You really can't get more "immersive" then that.

Edited by pursang, 19 April 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[Vexgrave Lars]

I love it when people call out my tribe... the min maxers, power gamers, munchkins.

Since you asked!

If you get "out-mathed" and "out-built" and then lost a match...especially to a lesser driver then you deserve it.. All the name calling in the universe "munchkin", "min-maxer" still leaves you a loser at the end. The heart of the act of war is to WIN, right? Why would you short change yourself ? If your role playing, is your role an over emotional incompetent hipster love-in flower girl at designing your mechs weapons load out, and balancing your combat needs and enhancing your battlefield value, to the game, your lance, and company mates? If so , again, you get what you deserved and tragically, they too will pay for your incompetence!

Damage curve analysis and Weight to armor to speed mechanics have been under scrutiny forever, since before the first counter ever hit a table. Tell ya what.. lets all drive exactly identical urban mechs.. so its all 100% fair, and you can feel equal. Please do the world a favor, and simply try harder to be better, and think for your own benefit, and your teams.

Because a lot of us already do, have, and will continue to, refine the art of playing Mechwarrior down as close as the rules will allow to a razors edge. Its a game of numbers from mechlab to retrieval, your betting your odds against luck and your wit, and you better load your dice.
Good Luck with your crusade Quixote.

Of course.. I know I'm a monster.. so is my whole tribe.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 19 April 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[Orzorn]

Stripping all the armor off a "useless" arm is a bad idea if they still have damage transfer. What happens is that having a stripped arm effectively increases that side torso's width twice over. The useless arm will be destroyed instantly, then all damage will transfer to the adjoining torso section. Well, now you not only have the torso as a target, but the destroyed arm transfers any damage to to torso as well! That effectively increases the target size of your torso, meaning leaving all armor off that arm is just going to make you lose that torso section even faster. Any stray round hitting that arm is going to damage that torso.

Of course, as I said, all of this is only if they still have damage transfer. We saw arms exploding in the gameplay video, so I'm not entirely sure, although I suppose any remaining stump of arm will transfer damage.

[Rejarial Galatan]

A good example of min/maxing: a designer of a fighter jet looks at his design and says to himself: how can I make this the best fighter I can to give its pilots the best chance? he then hits on the idea: MAXIMIZE FIREPOWER while MINIMIZING WEIGHT. MAXIMIZE AERODYNAMICS AND SMOOTH AIRFLOW while MINIMIZING DRAG. MAXIMIZE THRUST/SPEED/PERFORMANCE while MINIMIZING FUEL EXPENDITURE TO ACHIVE SAID MAX. MAXIMIZE ALL POSITIVE ASPECTS while MINIMIZING ANY/ALL NEGATIVE ASPECTS. VIOLA the best fighter that the designer could design given his/her current tech at the time

[Punisher 1]

I think people worry too much about these sort of things when we have yet to even test the game. However I will set my mech and skills up to maximize my ability to minimize your ability to win.

Edited by Punisher_1, 19 April 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[Insidious Johnson]

I plan on minimizing work and other extraneous activities to maximize MWO time... so... yes?

[Trogusaur]

GaussDragon, on 19 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

People are naturally going to want to find the configuration that best suits/is optimized for their purpose. If you don't want people trying to discover good loadouts, why even bother having the mechlab in the first place? If PGI does the balance right, we'll see many good loadouts instead of just a few dominant ones.

Min/maxing weapons exist in the canon, so the result would be the same. Even without the 'mechlab, gamers will still litter the field with Novas and Longbows to the same effect.

You are right though, if PGI can put a fair amount of balance into the game, there will be no reason to gripe.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 19 April 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[rollermint]

Everyone min-maxes, even those who claim they hate it with a passion. So called "balance" builts themselves are a form of min-maxing as well, in a sense. They are built to maximise your playstyle and approach, which is flexibility. Others trade flexibility for ultimate speed, or survivability or firepower. Whats important is that all combinations are viable strategies and hope not one of them became too overpowering as to become the only viable strategy. Its also important that the devs include obvious and clear repercussions when a person wholly sacrifices one aspect just to spec in a single focused built.