10 replies to this topic

[Yanlowen Cage]

Thought

If bv is used in tandem with elo, with BV being the major factor then mechs of similiar capability and pilot skill would drop vs. each other.

example: a raven 3l bv(710) with a excellent pilot with a force multipler (pilot skill) of 1.25 would have a final bv of 887. that would mean that he could face a rookie pilot of 1.1 in a mech with a bv of 806. which would have been around a 45 ton mech. now obviously the closer the pilot skills the closer in weight the mechs would have to be. This isn't perfect and would need tuning. But I believe it would pit pilots of similiar skill and combat ability closer together on drops.

Or we can go totally elo and have a hot Commando pilot facing an atlas d-dc

[MuadXDib]

Something like this or tonnage or caps/team etc seems obvious and intuitive to me unless I'm missing something.

[Hotthedd]

A good matchmaker would take into account: ELO, tonnage, classes, and ECM capability.

[Yanlowen Cage]

great thing about my idea is that BV takes into account tonnage,class, equipment, weapons, engine size, etc. Anything that can be put on a mech can be equated into a BV value and adds to the total bv value of the mech. ELO is what I believe is the only thing that is not taken into consideration with BV and that is the pilots ability. Thus combining both gives you a totally profile for a drop of pilot and mech combined. In this setup a more accurate and better balanced drop would occur.

[WildeKarde]

They have to add something based on the customisation of the mech. A mech with DHS currently is not better than SHS for matchmaking but in practice it's not the same.

[Side Step]

Hotthedd, on 25 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

A good matchmaker would take into account: ELO, tonnage, classes, and ECM capability.

A well balanced game shouldn't need to have to take ECM into account when balancing teams. Other than that, I agree.

[desertdawg]

It should be a Battle Value or a Combat Value.

[Hotthedd]

Side Step, on 25 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

A well balanced game shouldn't need to have to take ECM into account when balancing teams. Other than that, I agree.

And I agree with YOU. Unfortunately ECM is NOT balanced, therefore it should be a factor in Matchmaking.

[Side Step]

Hotthedd, on 25 March 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

And I agree with YOU. Unfortunately ECM is NOT balanced, therefore it should be a factor in Matchmaking.

Well, I would agree again if I didn't believe that to be just a band aid.

ECM is getting looked at. And I'm just keeping my fingers crossed until we get some more info. (source)

[Hotthedd]

Side Step, on 25 March 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

Well, I would agree again if I didn't believe that to be just a band aid.

ECM is getting looked at. And I'm just keeping my fingers crossed until we get some more info. (source)

If we take into account the track record of balancing things in this game, we will need more than your crossed fingers. Sure my suggestion is a Band-Aid, but it is a Band-Aid that would actually work.

[Side Step]

Hotthedd, on 25 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

If we take into account the track record of balancing things in this game, we will need more than your crossed fingers. Sure my suggestion is a Band-Aid, but it is a Band-Aid that would actually work.

You could very well be right. But following that logic; if they're so terrible at balancing, would they even be able to find the right battle weight to balance out ECM that way instead?

I've dropped my feedback for ECM, as I'm sure you have as well. I've seen a lot of good ideas for how ECM could be changed into an interesting mechanic for both user and enemy. If it was left the way it is and balanced through battle weight, I'd be very disappointed. So here's me hoping.

Sorry for going off topic.