3
However I feel that diversity in MWO is going to be quite low after a time and even when PGI forces diversity though certain mechanics it is going to leave a bad taste in some people’s mouths due to this lack of meaningful choice.
Yes this is a long essay one, my apologies. If you do not read it do not comment please.
Why we have the mechs/variants
It is not just because BT had them. The very reason from the game design perspective of MWO links into its business model and uses BT canon mechs and variants as its source.
With F2P games you want two things
- Lots of people playing as players ARE content
- People paying for various things in game
One way to keep people playing that PGI have chosen is having the 3 variant system to unlock the better tiers of the XP trees (as dull as they are). This is classic carrot dangling game design. Offer something to get the player to play more, or do certain things.
This is not a bad thing for the player to branch out and try new variants and it helps keep PGI going as some people will pay for mech bays, or the new mechs even. No problem with their system here – but only if the variants and mechs are differentiated enough that each time you purchase a new mech it is a NEW experience.
Diversity in BT
A quick history lesson that most of you already know I guess. Diversity in BT came from the fact that the stock variants were generally the ones used. (Yes custom rules blah, blah, blah), but in the BT universe there were so many mechs and variants to do different things that each was its own experience.
There were later option rules that gave individual mechs ‘quirks’ that were good or bad that gave mechs even more character and diversity. (I love this idea)
Customising away from this stock design idea allowed players to game the system to create whatever they wanted. Suddenly the only differentiation with a custom BT mech was the weight (Yes BV I know but that doesn’t count when talking about diversity). With every other pat of the mech being open to a player chucking in any tech they wanted you created your own mech – it was no longer a variant of an existing design and whatever the least balanced stuff in BT were become the norm as there are some things even in BT that were not trade offs, but straight our better.
Diversity in MWO
MWO is a little better than straight customising in BT thankfully – but it still has some issue that conflict with the game design and business model. PGIs business model is selling mechs and if mechs are not different enough then people will just stick with a few variants and mechs and not shell out for something different – do you follow the logic? If yes read on – if no, you will never agree with anything I say so flame me and move on.
Currently diversity has Seven differentiators (Please correct me if there are more)
Weight - The classic differentiator that Affects the profile, handling and load out
Profile - What the mech looks like, how big it is, how easy to hit in general and certain locations. Some mechs have better profiles than others, some are just ‘different’ than others allowing different tactics when moving to hide your more exposed points and so forth.
Number of type of hard points - Ahh hard points. The one concession to stop them just being gun bags and some people still hate them! This gives each mech some character but still has some issues as more variants and mechs come out there is only a certain limit of differentiation here
Location of hard points - Location is important due to profile and also targeting as the torso and arms aim differently which is a good thing for making mechs feel different. Centurion and Hunchback for instance, Ballistic on arm for one and on the torso for the other
Module Slots - I am not even sure on this. Most have 2 slots but some have more or less I believe giving some level of differentiation. This is ‘back loaded’ differentiation however as if you do not have any modules to start then it makes no difference.
Engine Size - Before they fixed the engines and put in the min and max engine sized based on original variant engine size it didn’t matter as people could just put whatever engine they wanted in so there was no differentiating point. This was an EXCELLENT move by PGI as mechs like the Dragon with big engines suddenly had a differentiating point to other heavy mechs. IT had a much higher max engine than others even in the medium range giving it a real role as a speedster.
Some say this was just to stop lights abusing high speeds and lags but I live in hope it was about differentiation and it WORKS (this is a key point to my argument)
JJ Enabled or Not - From the very beginning, only variants that traditionally had JJs in their stock design are allowed to put JJs when customising. This also allowed certain mechs to have an appeal. It was a boon to have the OPTION of JJs than if you do not. This restriction of certain equipment however is the ONLY one I can see.
Between Variants this shrinks to 5 with most of these remaining quite unchanged due to canon designs.
- Number of type of hard points
- Location of hard points
- Module Slots
- Engine Size
- JJ Enabled or Not
This leads to problems like the Jenner D and K which is what galvanised me to put these long running frustration into a post.
As far as I can tell, there is NO difference between the Jenner D and K apart from the fact than the D has an extra Missile slot. I do not know about modules. In effect this means the D can have every single customisation option the K has – and more since it has another option. This is a classic case of obsolescence and lack of diversity. Granted maybe it is poor variant choices but as we get more mechs and variants we are going to see this.
A player maxing out his Jenner XP is going to get the K variant and think that it is just a WORSE D variant. Player dissatisfaction, not adding anything new into the actual battlefield. Not good game design.
Increasing Diversity in MWO
There are three ways to affect player’s decisions to increase play time and different ways of playing; the Carrot, the Stick, and the Roadblock
The Carrot
This is where the game rewards players for doing something. It is a positive way of changing player behaviour, encouraging them to do different things so they get rewarded for that diversity.
An example of this is the 3 variant. Make players use different variants and they get new things to spend XP on. That is fine and ties into the business model too which is an excellent synergy.
The Stick
This is where you punish a player for doing certain actions. Classic cases of the stick are punishment for Team Kills for instance. Mostly being too heavy handed on the stick causes massive player dissatisfaction and is often used only when the Carrot and the roadblock are not enough form stopping behaviour that is bad for the game.
The Roadblock
In mechwarrior this is about restricting options. This is not a punishment as some people label it, just a lack of availability of something that everyone will encounter. Hard points are roadblocks, availability of JJs is another. Endo Steel and FF are not since ALL mechs CAN get them which leads to a point …
PGI being inconsistent with their methodology
Case in point: Artemis Vs JJ
Why are some mechs restricted via canon designs to have JJs but artemis is available to all? What is going to happen when ECM and BAP come in? Are all mechs going to be allowed to have any electronics or will some be variant restricted?
This is quite inconsistent and is worrying to me when you look across mechs. What happens when you can make your Jenner an awesome sensor mech when the Raven is suppose to have that stock use? The Raven also comes with a disadvantage that its base engine is smaller than the Jenner so it will never be as fast if it wanted to be .. the trade off was suppose to be that the Raven was unique being the sensor mech right?
Meaningful choices are starting to be chopped when all mechs can begin to do what other mechs can do. Role warfare breaks down and people gravitate towards the mechs with the best profiles, hard points and engines.
Differentiators as balancing agents
This is an opportunity for PGI not a curse though. Differentiators allow you to create balancing agents that are not able to be done on a spreadsheet. All things being equal if you know the Raven was a sensor mech and the Jenner a faster better arms mech you can immediately see the difference in roles there mechs could be used for.
The Raven would be more often used as a scout – but the Jenner could STILL be a scout with fewer sensors but better speed. Or the Jenner could be a brawler and so could the raven if it wanted – but they would certainly excel at certain roles.
When each mech becomes more unique it is easier to tweak things to make them more balanced or excel in certain roles more.
Ways PGI could increase diversity, role warfare, and inter-mech balance
Different handling characteristics – I have posted on this before, but if certain mechs had better or worse torso twist rates, or turning rates, or some other feature of moving your mech then you have a ‘front loaded’ differentiator. Let’s look at the Jenner and the Raven again. What if the Raven had a much better torso twist than the Jenner, but the Jenner could turn its torso faster? They would be roughly balanced but certainly different in their weight class.
Limiting certain electronics per variant bases just like JJs – Discussed this basically. This is a roadblock technique that gives differentiation between mechs and chassis. They have done it with JJs, why not ECM, BAP, Artemis and other add ons?
Redoing skill to be variant specific – This is more of a ‘back loaded’ differentiator as it only starts to appear as you gain XP and play the mech. If the upgrades were not generic but based on the variant and its role it would increase role warfare and allow mechs to shine at what they are good at. The Jenner Raven example might be that the Raven gets upgrades that makes its sensor equipment better that the Jenner cannot get. The issue I have with this approach is that you still have role crossover between the two mechs rather than being highly differentiated. This is a carrot type balancer rewarding rather than punishing or blocking.
Hard point Sizes – This is extremely controversial but screw it, I think it works. This would increase the roadblock of the hard points but also limiting what weapons can be put into certain slots. This would means that some variants that are quite similar might have another reasons to take them. The D and K Jenner variant for instance. What if the Jenner D had 2 small missile hard points while the K variant have a single large Missile hard point. With the energy hard points the same it would allow the K to do things the D cannot. Similar – but different variants.
So let’s have a civil discussion about this. It’s merits, its problems, alternative views. I obviously think I am right
Developers – I would LOVE to hear your views on this.
P.S. Anyone who says total open customisation brings more variety, I will not bother to answer your posts. I have never seen a single person who has been able to explain how this does not lead to a single best profile mech being the gun bag of choice and the inclusion of hard points clearly shows the Devs agree.
EDIT - Spelling, was bad I know.
Edited by Asmudius Heng, 10 November 2012 - 07:03 PM.
).
I would prefer it (personally), if you were given the option when purchasing the mech, i.e. Would you like to purchase this mech with/without Endo-Steel Internal Structure, as this is what it would come out the factory with.
