Jump to content

Match Making Based On Real Battlevalue


7 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you support this suggestion? (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Real Battle Value

  1. Yes (3 votes [30.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  2. No - (Actual MM is better) (2 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  3. No - (Have other ideas) (2 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  4. No - (Simple No) (1 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  5. Abstain (Dunno - need more information) (2 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 14 June 2013 - 01:51 AM

It's just an assumption that the Mechs, their loadout and their battle results are logged.
TL,DR:
Real battle values means - not some theoretical values of weapons, heat dissipation and armor but the outcome of battles.

Idea:
If so: it should be possible to generate a thread or battle value out of this stats.

Most simple way is to take the match score. and create an average for every mech. After that these values are used for match making.

Of course you have to remove AFK - players.

Reason:
i have had some games in the last days...and the result was always 8:3 to 8:1 - while i can't say anything about variables like Premades, ELO or team play i can say something about the Mechs used.
While the tonnage was with only on exception mostly equal - the mechs were not.
A Jenner and a Atlas have the same weight as a Stalker and a Hunchback but the result is completely differnt and i will always bet on the first couple.

So neighter tonnage, nor class matching (Raven vs Commando) nor ELO alone is sufficient to project the differnet factors into MM.

Another idea is battlevalue based on the loadout - but I fear that will penalize players that are able to create good builds.

It will also penalize builds that maybe deadly in good hands like the Hex PPC Stalker (and i don't think it is a good build, but there are some that demands that the PPC Stalker need a lot of care to used right)

Benefit:
If you only create those "Real" BattleValue you don't have to change the values when you buff or nerf stuff, you don't have to change that Value because the FotM has changed. Its a system that should work anytime.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 June 2013 - 04:25 AM.


#2 Fabe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,041 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:53 AM

So instead of MM being based on on a Elo score that is calculated on my win/lose score it'll be based on how well I did in my matches on average?

#3 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:23 AM

View PostFabe, on 14 June 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

So instead of MM being based on on a Elo score that is calculated on my win/lose score it'll be based on how well I did in my matches on average?

No - its and replacement for the actual MM based on tonnage or classes (if it works)
You ELO still remains - "Mech ELO" or RBV is an addition

#4 Syllogy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,698 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:21 AM

No. A jacktard in a high BV mech is still a jacktard.

#5 Seddrik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 247 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:07 PM

I agree that the current system is junk, but don't really get your system either.

It all seems so contrived when all other games I have played just put all players in the same mix. Elo should be removed. The table should be level for all in that respect. Anyone can get better gear over time. And anyone who works at it can be better skilled - some even better than others. Why have any system that punishes those who excel?

If there is a real learning curve for this game then I'm fine on letting new players have a 7-14 day period system that matches them with other new players first. But they have to learn how to handle real battles sometime... Our current system punishes those who succeed and prevents real teamwork (8 mans are not in the general public game play so that you are forced to have randoms who do not cooperate).

#6 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 17 June 2013 - 05:18 AM

View PostSeddrik, on 14 June 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

I agree that the current system is junk, but don't really get your system either.


Let me try to explain using this screenshot - thx to sorrow clown.
If it break some rules.. .let me know:
it shows a difference of "only" 60tons between victory and defeat.
I have fought in several battles were the loosing team had more tonnage. but still it is the same problem:

A Stalker vs Atlas both with comparable pilot skill will almost result in victory for the Stalker - simple because his hardpoint setting allow more firepower...
You can not reflect that with tonnage or elo pilot rating allone.

Posted Image

View PostSyllogy, on 14 June 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

No. A jacktard in a high BV mech is still a jacktard.

This is true.
But it doesn't matter if you have a powerful Stalke or a Highlander at an optimized setting for the current FotM when the pilot is not able to use it properly he looses, the team looses too.

That will not change with my suggestion.

I still hope that someday we will have a BattleValue that is able to reflect the game mechanics as well as the loadout of each Mech - absolutely necessary for competive game plays.

The current "fairness" mechanics- "you have all the same chances - want to be competive jump on the current FotM Mech & Loadout" - however does not favour diversity.

A BattleValue based on the results of all battles will - not punish players that are able to create capable loadouts - maybe it will result in a higher value for this variants - but the good one knews that his variant is better as the average build.

I have to admit that i still have concern that there are more below average players (because they are new - not noob) that will cause some serious BV problems. it need only 100 - 9 to 10 MatchScore Games with a AS7-K to neutralize 1 game with 500 MatchScore - resulting in a low rating for that Mech - means that pilot will be thrown into low BV matches - cutting like a hot knive through butter.

#7 Zerberus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,488 posts
  • LocationUnder the floorboards looking for the Owner`s Manual

Posted 17 June 2013 - 05:42 AM

Just for the record, as it seems to be forgotten often, CV /BV INCLUDES the pilot....The pilot is actualy a very significant portion of it. It is not at all uncommon for a light mech w/ an excellent pilot to have a higher BV/CV than most mediums and even some heavies with an average pilot. With a crappy pilot, some Atlas builds have a lower BV than a Commando with an ace pilot.

So essentially it`s matching potential weapons power, AND taking into account pilot skill of each individual mech..

We currently have Elo (pilot skill) + tonnage matching (the latter apparently somewhat borked for most, but I haven`t had significant problems).... which is, if nothing else, very similar in basic principle.... I think it`s also borked" for many, but believe the fault lies more with the impatient, FOTM, easily frustrated, Assaults>everything else,prone to quitting playerbase than with PGI. Simply because many of us experience significantly fewer such issues, but are dropping in more or less identical fashoion to those that do have them.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 June 2013 - 05:48 AM.


#8 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:08 AM

View PostZerberus, on 17 June 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

Just for the record, as it seems to be forgotten often, CV /BV INCLUDES the pilot....The pilot is actualy a very significant portion of it. It is not at all uncommon for a light mech w/ an excellent pilot to have a higher BV/CV than most mediums and even some heavies with an average pilot. With a crappy pilot, some Atlas builds have a lower BV than a Commando with an ace pilot.


Just for the record... I don't want to remove the player ELO. The player ELO is still necessary.
A good pilot in a bad mech may be equal to a bad pilot in a good mech.

The current problem is that there are mechs that work better as other mechs of nearly the same weight class. So you see almost the same chassis and variants - and I think only because they have the need to skill three variants.

A BattleValue system however will allow you to use a bad mech - like the AS7-K (every other Atlas has more potential) without punishing your team or your own experience.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users