25 replies to this topic

[HRR Insanity]

Woska, on 29 May 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

BV will be static, it has to be.

Why?

Quote

However C-bill costs may change for different factions. And even then, I think it will only be for complete mechs. Trying to create balance through financial restrictions is exactly the wrong way to do it. That simply makes the wealthy (or frivolous) more powerful than others.

I'm not suggesting financial methods are the only method of balancing. I'm just asking to see if the Devs are implementing any sort of dynamic costs (either c-bills or BV) in the game...

Kittygrinder, on 29 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

This thread of no use. This is a system they would never use, so why argue over it?

I'd be willing to wager that the Devs are using something along these lines... that's why I was hoping they would discuss it.

Insanity

Edited by HRR Insanity, 29 May 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"
Battle Value is a point-based system for the Classic BattleTech board game to measure the battlefield value of a given unit and to balance opposing forces.
Although it does factor the quality of the pilot, prevalence of a C3 network, and the size of the force relative to the opposition into the equation it is only a rough guideline; it does not take terrain features into account and naturally cannot account for the random element inherent to dice rolling (although the latter aspect is factored into the battle value assigned to individual weapons, to a degree).

That is why BV is a bad meter to gauge weapons value. It is/was designed for a Board game and even under that medium it was just a force composition modifier and did not take ALL things into account (and those player Roll Dice). In a Real time environment it becomes even more soft as a defining measure.

[Belisarius1]

The first issue I have with BV in general is that it is very, very good at hiding real problems. If ERLLs are overpowered, I would rather they actually be nerfed. You can balance with BV, but that doesn't mean you always should. I'm very concerned that BV frequently becomes an excuse to never change anything about a weapon except its BV.

Second, I wouldn't balance through C-bills at all. I'm strongly of the opinion that metagame-based balancing is doomed to failure because players always become richer than the system is designed to deal with. You're then forced to bump costs to compensate, which cripples new players. And worst of all, a successfully balanced market is an environment that's dangerously close to pay-to-win, where the only way to get good numbers of powerful assets is to buy them.

Finally, it's important to realise that a market-based BV system by nature balances for the skill average when you should be balancing for the skill maximum. That leads to a number of problems, particularly at the top (which I assume HRR intends to inhabit).

It's possible that some weapons or tactics will only be strong among really, really good players because most people aren't able to use them to their fullest extent. Weapons with these characteristics will be undervalued in a market system because although they're broken, they're only prevalent in a small chunk of the playerbase. This keeps their price low and hides the fact that they're hideously strong once you mount the skill curve. The other side of the coin is that easy-to-use weapons can saturate lower-skill tiers, while actually being perfectly balanced once people know how to deal with them. These weapons would be so overpriced as to never be worth using in higher tiers.

Edited by Belisarius1, 29 May 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Belisarius1, on 29 May 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

The main issue I have with BV in general, but specifically with a system like this is that it is very, very good at hiding real issues.

If ERLLs are overpowered, I would rather they actually be nerfed. You can balance with BV and a market-based system would be a clean way of doing it, but that doesn't mean you always should. I'm very concerned that BV frequently becomes an excuse to never change anything about a weapon except its BV.

There's two other issues. First, I wouldn't do it through C-bills at all. I'm strongly of the opinion that metagame-based balancing is doomed to failure because players always become richer than the system is designed to deal with. You're then forced to either bump costs to compensate, crippling new players and/or introducing pay-to-win, where the only way to get good numbers of powerful assets is to buy them.


The third (and most important) is that a market-based BV system by nature balances for the skill average when you should be balancing for the skill maximum.

It's common that some weapons or tactics are only overpowered among really, really good players because most people aren't good enough to use them to their fullest extent. Weapons with these characteristics will be undervalued in a market system because although they're broken, they're only prevalent among a small proportion of the population. This keeps their price low and hides the fact that they're actually hideously strong. The other side of the coin is that some weapons can be very easy to use and saturate lower-skill tiers, while actually being perfectly balanced once people are good enoug to deal with them. These would be overpriced to a good player.

All good points. That's one of the reasons I was hoping the Devs might chime in as to whether this sort of approach is being considered or has actually been implemented...

MaddMaxx, on 29 May 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

That is why BV is a bad meter to gauge weapons value. It is/was designed for a Board game and even under that medium it was just a force composition modifier and did not take ALL things into account (and those player Roll Dice). In a Real time environment it becomes even more soft as a defining measure.

Dynamic BV would be inherently more balanced than the static BV that was a published feature of the TT game. Moreover, the BV values in the TT game [i]changed[i] over time. And as this could be largely automated, it would be a potential way to help the matchmaking process.

Insanity

Edited by HRR Insanity, 29 May 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[Belisarius1]

I feel like you guys would have had a better chance of getting responses if you'd started posting on here before the beta went live. I rather suspect they're ignoring this forum in favour of whatever hidden section the beta feedback is posted in.

EDIT: and here, we start to see the issues that arise from posting and then making edits for the next like half an hour... I really need to learn to just get it right the first time.

Edited by Belisarius1, 29 May 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[Bylak]

I think it's an interesting idea, however we're kind of limited at the moment by not knowing the scope of what C-Bills will be used for. Like a few others have mentioned, will they be used solely for weapon purchases, or will they be a factor in repairs as well? If so, how much? I think this might be a good idea to bring up again further along in the beta when more information is available.