92 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

Victor Morson, on 25 April 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

From my understanding, the idea was that high ELO players would be worth more money to kill. My concern is that you would attempt to sync drop with said high ELO players for the express purpose of killing them for high cash farming, to the point you'd probably have people multi-boxing just to have two ELO accounts or more take turns murdering each other for cash farming.

Though, I will admit, this is not nearly as bad as EVE where you could have player-set bounties. I should have clarified, because that was infinitely more exploitable (If someone put a 10 billion ISK bounty on your head, you could have your buddy ice you in a shuttle and split the reward money. Seriously broken.)

farming would likely only allow most players to break even. generally most players in a group will have roughly the same stats because they play together. so if anyone did that they would likely only earn the average amount of cbills/xp. the only way farming could be consistently done would be if new players were allowed to kill veterans repeatedly. the mech values themselves do skew this, but i mostly see it as a non-issue. besides this tends to be well balanced by the vanity of most players (they don't want their precious KD to drop any).

side note: the eve system does work somewhat better if the person with the bounty has invested heavily in implants.

edit: read your post again and now i think i understand the issue. having a high ELO yourself counteracts the bonuses. two players with equal ELO will earn the standard rate for xp/cbills. a player with a high ELO vs. a player with low ELO will earn less than normal. a player with low ELO hurting a player with high ELO will gain more than average.

it is the ratio of the opposed skill values that controls the reward.

i am going to use simple ELO values to try to express this clearly.

3 players

• newb has an ELO of 1 (unskilled / just started)
  
• average guy has an ELO of 5 (does well but nothing to brag about)
  
• veteran has an ELO of 11 (this one goes to eleven)

lets assume a standard scenario where a player does enough damage to earn 100 cbills

case 1:
newb does this damage to average guy: (100 cbills) X (average guys ELO score of 5) / (newbs ELO score of 1) = 500 cbills

case 2:
veteran does this damage to average guy (same target but much more skilled shooter): (100 cbills) X (average guys ELO score of 5) / (veterans ELO score of 11) = 45 cbills

in case 2 the target was the same but the shooters high value counteracted any bonus that would have been earned.

FOR ANYONE READING THIS THESE ARE NOT THE VALUES I AM ADVOCATING THIS WAS A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW THE GENERAL MECHANICS OF THE SYSTEM WORK.

Edited by blinkin, 25 April 2013 - 11:57 PM.

[Gaden Phoenix]

This seriously needs to happen.

A soft approach to balancing mechs.

[JuiceKeeper]

Voted yes. Its nice idea which bring little bit of eguality am all for it .

[blinkin]

Gaden Phoenix, on 26 April 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

This seriously needs to happen.

A soft approach to balancing mechs.

i am of the opinion that you shouldn't tell players they can't do something if it can be avoided in any way. however giving them consequences for doing something will often have the same effect as telling them they can't, except now players don't feel like they have been abused in some way.

also i get to keep my catapult C4 with 4x SRM6 and i don't have to feel like i am just beating slow kids. it will be much more like the glory days of repair and rearm, when i could feel proud of my 4-5 kills in a match. these days the SRM cat is widely insulted because the build has been infested by mouth breathers that leg hump their way to victory.

[Straften]

Very well thought out. I want to say I agree, but there are a lot of potential side effects when you introduce this many variables. That said, I'm leaning toward this, it is a good idea.

It made me think back to Halo 2, when people would join games and intentionally throw game after game in order to lower their ranking (what we now call ELO,) in order to get matched up against easy players. It seems like if you lowered your ELO significantly, and then went out in your favorite medium brawler, one could make some serious cBills.

Can you, OP, think of a way to stop or reduce the number of players who would do this, without resorting to a "report" system where any mad teammate can report you for any reason at the end of the game?

Edited by Straften, 26 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[blinkin]

Straften, on 26 April 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Can you, OP, think of a way to stop or reduce the number of players who would do this, without resorting to a "report" system where any mad teammate can report you for any reason at the end of the game?

that is a potential problem. the best i can offer is making it so ELO isn't effected by AFK or disco, which flies directly in the face of some suggestions i have seen.

i will think about this for a while, but i see no easy solution ATM.

[blinkin]

bump

[Voridan Atreides]

blinkin, on 07 April 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

i would like to bring back the thrill of the hunt in this game. before with repair and rearm there was a risk associated with running some of the more powerful mechs. that risk made the game much more appealing to me.

BUT

i do recognize that there are those out there who do not like RR. i don't agree, but this isn't just my game.

here is my potential solution:

Bounties
ok well not exactly, but this is the best word i could find to describe what i want.

any numbers listed should be tested and are only in place to express the general idea.

it has been mentioned before that we should combine ELO scores and mech stats when assembling teams. this idea is a sort of spin off from that.

• all players in a match would have a battle value
  
• these battle values would be listed at the beginning of the match and also with the target data upon locking a target
  
• their battle value would be a combination of their ELO and the total cbill value of their mech (trial mechs value would be reduced by a certain amount, 25% maybe)
  
• a multiplier would also be associated with being in a group
  
• this would be used for matching purposes to keep teams mostly balanced BUT NOT to seperate players into their own tiers.
  
• the battle value of the target would also provide a multiplier on xp and cbill awards
  
• all awards you earn would also be divided by your battle value
  
• BV would multiply any awards given to someone who shoots the player. targets with a high battle value would net more awards for players that damage them
  
• all awards would also be divided by your own personal BV. a player with a high battle value would earn less

yes i know battle value has another definition in table top, but i really don't care.






if a player who just started today manages to beat me while i am in my 11,000,000cbill catapult with a trial mech then he deserves a hefty reward for that feat.

if i run around in my 11,000,000cbill catapult and brutalize new players who are in cheap mechs, then it should earn me much less money than a fair fight.

with this skilled players in expensive mechs become targets. this solves several balance issues.

• players would be encouraged to lower the value of their mech as much as possible if they wish to avoid being a target and earn more money. (players are awarded for running cheaper mechs)
  
• new players would be targetted much less, giving them more of a chance to get used to the game
  
• new players would be awarded much more for damaging or killing veterans or other players in more expensive mechs
  
• matches would tend to end with weaker mechs / pilots on the field giving new players a much better chance of scoring a kill
  
• players in groups would be awarded less for brutalizing unorganized enemies
  
• pugs would be awarded more for beating organized groups
  
• players are awarded more for beating more dangerous targets in general
  
• players who want a challenge can play much more expensive mechs to call out more enemies. (not really a balance issue, but something i would really like)
  
• pugs would naturally focus fire more
  
• we can stop nerfing all of the weapons down to different graphic effects for the same 4 DPS.

this would allow us to have many more unbalanced weapons, but the trade off is they are much more expensive. so you earn less money when using them and people will also target you more.






people can continue to flood the field with SRM cats and assault mechs but they will have to work much harder to make money.

so here is the math that explains what would happen to your awards:

• (ELO) * (mech value modifier) * (group size modifier) = (battle value)
  
• (base award) * (battle value of target) / (your battle value) = (actual cbill and xp awards)

if you are not in a group then the group size modifier would simply be 1.



mech value modifier would be multiplied by 0.75 if the player is in a trial mech.

don't forget to vote, especially if you like it.

Yes. Saw this suggestion a while back. Would add more depth that seems to be lacking right now.

[Syrkres]

One problem I have with this is:

Quote

we can stop nerfing all of the weapons down to different graphic effects for the same 4 DPS.
this would allow us to have many more unbalanced weapons, but the trade off is they are much more expensive. so you earn less money when using them and people will also target you more.

How does having a bounty on someone make it so we can apply the above?

I mean I am all for placing bounties or contracts on other players, either at the start of the match or after a match (some gets a cheap shot on me and I want revenge).

But how does having over powered weapons help with a contract/bounty? How does it make the game playable for all? As you say it would allow us to have "more unbalanced weapons". A single LRM missle that can hit a Jenner doing 130 and take out a fresh leg is un-balanced, thus needs to be nerfed (now obviously that is over stating LRM, but having unbalanced weapons breaks the game).

Bounty/contracts has nothing to do with weapon balance.

[blinkin]

Syrkres, on 02 May 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

One problem I have with this is:



How does having a bounty on someone make it so we can apply the above?

I mean I am all for placing bounties or contracts on other players, either at the start of the match or after a match (some gets a cheap shot on me and I want revenge).

But how does having over powered weapons help with a contract/bounty? How does it make the game playable for all? As you say it would allow us to have "more unbalanced weapons". A single LRM missle that can hit a Jenner doing 130 and take out a fresh leg is un-balanced, thus needs to be nerfed (now obviously that is over stating LRM, but having unbalanced weapons breaks the game).

Bounty/contracts has nothing to do with weapon balance.

because the system really doesn't have anything to do with bounties, but like i said in the OP that is the closest word i could find to describe my system. read through the whole OP and it will make sense. not to be rude but your response tells me you read little to nothing beyond the title.

Voridan Atreides, on 30 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yes. Saw this suggestion a while back. Would add more depth that seems to be lacking right now.

not sure what else to add. i avoided including any specific numbers because i knew they would mostly be BS guesses that would get thrown out anyway. if you have any suggestions, post them. very often in threads if i see a decent modification to my idea i will work it into the OP.

[Syrkres]

Still reading the OP I don't see how it has to do with Weapon VALUES....

Just because a weapon does X dmg has nothing to do with it's value and someones BV as he claims.

Weapon Balancing is part of the game to make the game fair.

As for his type of Bounty - sorry had to change my vote.... No, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The reason being - if I see an easy kill - low bounty or not I am going to kill it - as should anyone.

Sure I will pay attention to those higher ones, but that also means I need to be more careful around them, but if I can easily eliminate those pesky easy kills quickly (low bounty) then focus on the harder ones it makes it easier for me to identify who is easy to kill and who is hard to kill.

So NO I do not support this.

Edited by Syrkres, 02 May 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[blinkin]

Syrkres, on 02 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Still reading the OP I don't see how it has to do with Weapon VALUES....

Just because a weapon does X dmg has nothing to do with it's value and someones BV as he claims.

Weapon Balancing is part of the game to make the game fair.

As for his type of Bounty - sorry had to change my vote.... No, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The reason being - if I see an easy kill - low bounty or not I am going to kill it - as should anyone.

Sure I will pay attention to those higher ones, but that also means I need to be more careful around them, but if I can easily eliminate those pesky easy kills quickly (low bounty) then focus on the harder ones it makes it easier for me to identify who is easy to kill and who is hard to kill.

So NO I do not support this.

fair enough. i think most players will tend to go for higher value targets, but this is a debate on the psychology of the average MWO player and i don't really think there is any information out there that definitively proves either of us right.

[blinkin]

bump

[Draxist]

well thought out and deserves to be read by more people, you sir, have my vote.

[blinkin]

Draxist, on 12 May 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

well thought out and deserves to be read by more people, you sir, have my vote.

seems to be pretty popular so far.

[Owlfeathers]

Seems like a good idea to me. Well thought out, OP.

[Badconduct]

I agree with this.

It's better then Snitchin'

Every +1 on your head adds a bonus on death.

Edited by Badconduct, 17 May 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[blinkin]

Badconduct, on 17 May 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

I agree with this.

It's better then Snitchin'

Every +1 on your head adds a bonus on death.

ok have read this several times now and i am fairly thoroughly convinced you missed the point of my OP.

i used the word "bounties" because actually trying to describe my idea in the title would have made it way too long.

i am advocating a system that gives players a rank or score based on the value of their mech combined with their ELO scores. all awards given would be based on the compared ranks or scores. an unskilled player in a crappy mech earns a lot for hurting a pilot that is either more skilled or in a better mech. and a pilot with a high score earns much less for beating up on newbies in cheap mechs.

[blinkin]

bump

[Deathlike]

I will say this.. it would be great for tourney bonuses.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 May 2013 - 10:19 AM.