14 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Before I begin, I do realize that the developers are putting an emphasis on making every mech relevant and important to the battle, and the game is looking outstanding so far.

But at the end of the day, that 25 ton Commando isn't likely to take down an Atlas, unless that Commando pilot is damn good at his job. Even with the importance of speed and teamplay, it seems like heavier mechs will probably come to dominate, simply because they will pack in more guns and armor.

But I have one possible suggestion for encouraging the use of lighter mechs, or at least, not picking massive assaults and heavies all the time.

Presumably, at the end of every battle, you win some amount of XP, C-Bills, Mechwarrior credits, etc (whatever, lets just call them reward points for now). The team that loses gets say, 50, a piece (just for example), while the team that wins gets 100, by default (plus bonuses for surviving, kills, damage, tagging, etc)

But instead of just leaving it like that, how about a modifier. Take the opposing team's accumulated Battle Value and divide it by the your team's accumulated battle value, and then multiply this by the total reward points. This way, "stacked" teams with ridiculously high battle value get less of a reward for pummeling on a smaller medium mech lance (who would get better reward for their loss), while in the even of a win, that medium lance gets big reward.

Example: Medium Lance (Total Battle Value: 4000) against Heavy Lance (Total Battle Value: 5000)

So (using the 50/100 reward point example):

Medium Lance gets 50 for losing, but that gets adjusted: 50 x (5000 / 4000) == 62.5
Heavy Lance gets 100 points for winning, but adjusted: 100 x (4000 / 5000) == 80

but if the medium lance wins,


Medium Lance gets 100 for the underdog victory, but that gets adjusted: 100 x (5000 / 4000) == 125
Heavy Lance gets 50 points for the loss, but adjusted: 50 x (4000 / 5000) == 40

The greater the odds, the bigger the reward (and vice versa). It would encourage skilled and experienced players into lighter mechs, and rewarding teams for fighting against superior firepower.

I realize that there would likely be some tweaking (some people don't like Battle Value; and a lot depends on what the 'default' reward is for a game; etc) but I thought it might make for a good suggestion.

(edit: had a win/lose wording mixup; ty ManDaisy)

Edited by Protection, 28 May 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[WalkingDeathBot]

interesting.........I can see where you're going...

or,

they could do some sort of balance on the total tonnage of opposing teams.......

[GoriKarafong]

I really like this idea. It should take the BV into account not the tonnage. This idea should be supported guys.

Also the rep-costs should bei lower for smaller mechs and with lowtech. If you have a big mech and expensive equip more things can brake or are more costly to repair. I like to see a lot of different mechs in battle. Not only big ones. Please include rules to support this.

Greetings and sorry for bad text (mobile phone)
Gori

Edited by GoriKarafong, 28 May 2012 - 10:37 PM.

[OcO]

WalkingDeathBot, on 28 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

interesting.........I can see where you're going...

or,

they could do some sort of balance on the total tonnage of opposing teams.......

Tonnage as the only factor for matchmaking will not work imo. Even forgetting for the moment that clans when they come out would be way overpowered on a purely ton by ton ratio. Consider the case of players that are broke from losing to much and have only the barest of repairs as it was stated you will always at least get basic repairs after a match. A functional but not fully repaired mech would not be equivalent to a fully repaired model. I think the BV of the mechs should be as important if not more so than just the mech's tonnage. A functional be not 100% mech should have a lower BV than the 100% model.

[Mizore]

That sounds good to me, i like this idea.

I've already asked myself how they will solve this problem, but as long as i'm not in the beta it's all about speculation.
Another idea would be to bring a maximum weight limit for all mechs together and the difference between the maximum weight and the actual weight is some kind of bonus per ton after the battle.



Ah, there's a mistake in your second example when the medium lance wins a battle, there you mixed up losing an winning.

[ManDaisy]

Blind BV matches with a margin on inequality based on the payout. Thats the best way to go. Then you don't end up with problems where people squat the room unless they have the advantage.

[WalkingDeathBot]

you guys are swaying me on this one..........would be interesting, (#*@ I am curious at what the beta folks are thinking of matchmaking and balance issues at the moment.

[Protection]

ManDaisy, on 28 May 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Blind BV matches with a margin on inequality based on the payout. Thats the best way to go. Then you don't end up with problems where people squat the room unless they have the advantage.

Yeah, I can see that as a concern.

[wwiiogre]

great idea and add in a tonnage weight limit as well. So you could limit weight, but then more experienced players will have better mechs with better gear, but add in the modifier for BV and voila you have a good way to balance rewards for risk.

I like it.

Chris

[Kain Damael]

OcO, on 28 May 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Tonnage as the only factor for matchmaking will not work imo. Even forgetting for the moment that clans when they come out would be way overpowered on a purely ton by ton ratio. Consider the case of players that are broke from losing to much and have only the barest of repairs as it was stated you will always at least get basic repairs after a match. A functional but not fully repaired mech would not be equivalent to a fully repaired model. I think the BV of the mechs should be as important if not more so than just the mech's tonnage. A functional be not 100% mech should have a lower BV than the 100% model.

I think this is an excellent point. While on a surface view, tonnage is easy to manage, even if a system is drawn up for a match tonnage limit, with modifier for under tonnage, it assumes that all of the mechs would have the same tonnage ratio and condition. What if there was another modifier where your chassis had a pre existing battlefield value, modified by hardware and condition. And if you did a team limit, then reward those that didn't use the full limit. It addresses a differential between those mech's with more 'efficient' loadouts, mech's that are usable but not at 100%, and the the chassis themselves. Hopefully give a lot of the mediums and heavies more chance at heavier play.

Another interesting idea.... mismatched numbers in matches. I mean, who wants to be a team of 2 assault vs a team of 6 mediums?

Another thing to consider I suppose is to see how they manage the terrain. If they incorperate more difficult or broken terrain, it could just prove to be fatal to an assault/light only team if they are more easily out maneuvered. Mediums and Heavies eat the scouts, then harass till the big guys die...

[TriggerhappySOB]

This idea... I like it... It makes sense. and this is why i hang around on this website instead of facebook... its like polar opposites. Facebook = people i see every day and **** me off with a consistent amount of stupidity , mwomercs = fellow battletech fans who share my unusual obsession with a fictional universe and come up with good ideas and sound logic. Kudos to you my good man!

[Forscythe]

Mission parameters, maybe slot per mission for lance build. Eg.: 1 light slot 1 medium slot 1 heavy slot 1 assault slot or whatever for missions based on the resources your house has at hand. It takes all the bickering about mixed lances vs. all assault lances out of the equation, and gives you a reason to have multiple mechs in your garage. It is often in battle that you are put into a situation at which you will not have control over how much you can feild at any given time.

The orders have come down the line and command can only feild x amount of mechs for this mission do you accept?

I would guess that under this type of balancing some missions would suck. Do you have the stuff to see this thing through?

[Cerlin]

I totally support some kind of idea like this that either rewards having a more balanced mech company or enforces it. In the end offering incentives may be a good way but I am not against enforcing it and perhaps calculating income based on weapons and overall tonnage.

[Maull]

Not a bad idea, seems fairly strait forward.

[Zyzyx66]

This.

An excellent way to balance, and really less for the actual balance of the match, but more just to make the players feel like they can gain something out of the fight. Especially since it might limit the amount of people who whine that their team is unbalanced all through a match

I enjoy playing for the underdogs (FRRFL!) and something like this would reward people who play with sportsmanship when they're on the dog-end.