# MWO & Ballance

31 May 2013This post was written as a defense of this reddit comment in which I more or less flame PGI's ability to balance the game and suggest that the proposed chassis specific buff quirks would bring more harm than good to the MWO community at this point in time.

In an abstract sense it is relatively easy to balance a video game. By defining some scoring system which reflects a unit, weapon or item's combat effectiveness, one simply must ensure that for all weapons, the fitness or effectiveness function yields as close to equal values as possible. This is good and rational, because trivially if one is to achieve balance then for some definition of equality all must be equal within some framework of tradeoffs & costs.

## BattleTech

When balancing a tabletop game such as battletech, it is relatively trivial to define such a "fitness" or "combat effectiveness" function. Consider the mobility of the piece, its striking value, damage absorption capability and between these points one could define an entire universe of functions which rate mechs differently based on different assumptions.

One trivial and valid fitness function is to assume that a mech *will
be* destroyed, and that as some value X constitutes the average damage
output of the opposition then the expected number of survivable salvos
is N, multiply N by the maximum repeatable alpha of the mech and add
some fudge factor based on the move speed relative to the average
expected movement speed of the opposition. The sum of these terms then
is crudely the expected damage output of a given mech for a given
matchup, being the essential combat effectiveness value of a
mech. Mechs with higher expected damage output values will almost
necessarily perform better in combat than a mech with a lower expected
damage output value, but these are subject to fudge factors such as
probability of hit & probability of being hit which complicate things
further.

Clearly balancing a game is no easy task. The universe of possible value combinations even under this very restricted three aspect system and it becomes clear that there is room not only for a huge amount of subtlety in that one mech may be as "fit" or "balanced" numerically as some other mech yet hard counter it due to excessive maneuverability or huge apha or soforth.

This is where traditional "table top" battletech has its roots. Each "technical report" game manual lists the striking values for weapons & speeds on an engine by engine basis, providing a multidimensional matrix of all possible loadouts and the numbers required to compute damage values & soforth for all possible combat situations. Add to this the "random" element of dice rolling and it is quite clear that balancing good 'ol table top (tt) battletech (btech) was no mean feat. To be honest I don't know much of BTech's history as a tt game, born in 1992 I missed BTech's heyday in the 80s by nearly a full decade. However looking at other tt games such as Warhammer 40K from Games Workshop it is clear that game designers seldom get a game balanced on the first try simply because balancing a game is a massively involved problem.

## Mechwarrior Online

I'm not sure if it's reasonable to accuse the MWO community at large of needing to sit down, shut up and wait for Community Warfare when MWO is expected to be nearly feature complete, balanced and ready for Prime Time. Several months ago at the end of closed beta I remember talking to several of my fellow cRedditors who quipped that MWO was already in release because there is a playable game and PGI will take your money with a smile. There is more than a grain of truth here, but the important thing in my mind is that as a community we need to be\