276 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

Cavadus does have a very valid argument, but I think Battle Value shouldn't be solely dependent on it being faction specific. Also we need to account for people wanting to join as a team. I believe that we need some combination of and Elo style matching system, and a BV matching system so say the merc Group acting on behalf of a house is supposed to face a Clan group for defense of a planet. They should first be matched based on team Elo, and then inside the lobby each team has to come up with a solid balance based on the BV available.

In the TT a fairly standard lance on lance action is a BV of 10k, but since a more equitable and timely balance would be found with 2-3 lances or 1-2 stars would be found at about 30k BV I see this as a more player friendly level. Especially considering that PVP combat is going to go much faster than the Tabletop game will (there are no dice rolls and no rules lawyering). If Respawning is included this would still be an equitable system to use. Obviously BV would have to be tweaked to be more equitable to both sides, but as long as both sides bid within a set BV we will see a more balanced game play, and this would still work if the balance is supposed to favor one side over the other.

So a surprise attack by the Clanners on The Rock should have a slight BV bias towards the clans (say 30k for IS and 40K for the Clanners) this would still give the IS players a sense of fair play, but still give the surprise advantage to the Clanners, and make victory for the IS players all the more sweet.

[Riptor]

Quote

so what? what if the clan tech offers the best of the best? they would be like the equivalent of most high end weapons and armors in most mmorpg, advancing in lvl and skill means getting better equipment and I think that what the clan will represent in this game high end equipment

Sorry to say but: Really? You really dont see the problem at hand?

If you cant simply see the huge balance issue with introducing a faction that gets superior equipment from the get go one year after the game started and established itselfe then you clearly have no idea what the word balance means.

You see battletech isnt a system that is based on loot progression and i (and i guess many more) sure as hell do not want it to degenerate into a hunt for the phat lootz.. especialy if one faction exclusevly doesnt even need to hunt them but gets them more or less for free as starting gear.

This isnt diablo or WoW where with each patch the equipment you currently own suddenly becomes worthless because theres new shiny purple gear with even better stats available.

Quote

If you keep Clan vs IS games in a separate queue (perhaps land exchange only?) and have everything else be pure IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I dunno.. im not against seperating the two a bit but.. in all honesty? Wich F2P game does that? :/

Edited by Riptor, 18 November 2011 - 09:13 PM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

...inside the lobby each team has to come up with a solid balance based on the BV available.

That would only work with pre-made teams. No PUG is going to give two ***** about spreading BV between the team and in the end you'll end up with two assault mechs and a bunch of 20 tonners or something.

In online gaming you can't depend on players to do the right thing. Ever.

That's why I originally typed the OP. If you include clan tech and you can customize mechs then this entire game becomes nothing but an arms race to refit IS mechs with clan tech. This marginalizes almost all IS tech and pushes IS tech completely out of high level play because clan technology is just superior. Period.

This also means that guilds focusing on high level play will probably begin to exclude pilots who only possess IS tech and that gap widens even more.

And why the hell is anyone still saying we can't have the clans? I'm pretty sure I've posted again and again that you can have clans and even clan mechs, ya just can't have clan tech.

Clan tech was a huge mistake when it was introduced to the TT. There's no reason to repeat it here and even the creators of BattleTech have made comments about stupid clan technology is and they meant for the clans and their tech to be something much less outrageous.

[Eckerson]

Riptor, on 18 November 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

The only solution i can imagine is that there is no BV limit...

But that the game will try to atleast roughly MATCH BVs instead of limiting the ammount of BV per game. This is the only way i can imagine a BV system working...

But it might make the waiting time between matches for Clanners longer then for IS players... so still tricky... after all people should all get the same playtime out of the game no matter wich faction they belong to.

I still think there is a balance that can be met, but BV limits won't be it. BVs were fine when you were playing as an entire force, but with multiple strangers each being a single unit in that force, that detracts from the fun of the game. I think it would be better for a player to need to be a light mech because there is some part of the match where that would be useful vs needing the player to be in a light mech so they could even be in the match due to a BV limit.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

If you keep Clan vs IS games in a separate queue (perhaps land exchange only?) and have everything else be pure IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

This issue extends past Clan vs IS and would also affect IS vs IS matches. If I replaced Riptor's previous example with a IS assault mech, I would be pretty ticked off to have spent all the c-bills on that mech to never being able to take it to a match because 7 of the 8 people on my team brought the BV too close to the limit before I joined, forcing me to take a smaller BV mech which I may not have. Having any kind of BV limit, even a "be X% within Y BV" punishes people for joining a game lobby late in a way that would be too frustrating for the player.

I think if you can balance the lighter vs heavier mechs by giving players a tactical reason to be a lighter mech, you can do the same with Clan vs IS mechs. According to the books (I know, I know...), the Clans were not well suited to long-term battles. This caused the IS to have some success with fighting them, because having been in almost constant war with each other, they were well prepared to be able to extend conflicts past the point where Clan forces were willing or able to continue fighting, despite having superior firepower.

Now, this being instanced PVP, that doesn't really apply well for a match (since matches won't last that long). However, that could be used to explain giving the IS better gear to help them tactically vs the Clans' advanced firepower. Let the Clan tech be slightly more powerful but more to the core of mech combat, while the IS has additional non-offensive equipment (satellite imaging if you're defending your world, unmanned drones, etcetera). I don't think you would want to keep the clans as powerful as they were in CBT, but you could have a slight difference and balance it elsewhere.


Edit because I'm too slow at responding!:

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

That's why I originally typed the OP. If you include clan tech and you can customize mechs then this entire game becomes nothing but an arms race to refit IS mechs with clan tech. This marginalizes almost all IS tech and pushes IS tech completely out of high level play because clan technology is just superior. Period.

That is a good point, and my above example of balancing would not apply very well if you could just take Clan tech. At that point, why not make the two systems incompatible? Or if not incompatible, make it so the two technologies don't work as well together, so a Clan ER PCC in an IS mech would not function as well.

As another option, you could change the advantage in technology to something other than the weapons. Maybe weapons are the same but they just have slightly better armor, and their computer systems are incompatible with the IS tactical equipment. That would give Clan mechs a defensive advantage in combat, but the IS mechs a tactical advantage (something that wouldn't be combine-able in customization). The end result would be a difference in Clan tech vs IS tech (since the two would deviate from their separation for so long), without necessarily granting one complete superiority.

Edited by Eckerson, 18 November 2011 - 09:34 PM.

[Halfinax]

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

That would only work with pre-made teams. No PUG is going to give two ***** about spreading BV between the team and in the end you'll end up with two assault mechs and a bunch of 20 tonners or something.

In online gaming you can't depend on players to do the right thing. Ever.

That's why I originally typed the OP. If you include clan tech and you can customize mechs then this entire game becomes nothing but an arms race to refit IS mechs with clan tech. This marginalizes almost all IS tech and pushes IS tech completely out of high level play because clan technology is just superior. Period.

This also means that guilds focusing on high level play will probably begin to exclude pilots who only possess IS tech and that gap widens even more.

And why the hell is anyone still saying we can't have the clans? I'm pretty sure I've posted again and again that you can have clans and even clan mechs, ya just can't have clan tech.

Clan tech was a huge mistake when it was introduced to the TT. There's no reason to repeat it here and even the creators of BattleTech have made comments about stupid clan technology is and they meant for the clans and their tech to be something much less outrageous.

I know you and I have butted heads on several occasions. Considering that I am suggesting a compromise between team based combat and PUB based combat. I'm suggesting a completely separate system for each. I see the PUB (single player joining system as you suggest and team based play as I suggest). I think team based play should be closer to the normal, but should not make PUBs feel excluded by any measure, and I think that is the Devs intent with asking players to commit to a House/Faction(merc corp) on player creation.

The game needs to, as other titles such as League of Legends has, have a separate match making system for single player join ups vs team join ups where overall/average Elo is considered over single player Elo.

[Kudzu]

Eckerson, on 18 November 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

This issue extends past Clan vs IS and would also affect IS vs IS matches. If I replaced Riptor's previous example with a IS assault mech, I would be pretty ticked off to have spent all the c-bills on that mech to never being able to take it to a match because 7 of the 8 people on my team brought the BV too close to the limit before I joined, forcing me to take a smaller BV mech which I may not have. Having any kind of BV limit, even a "be X% within Y BV" punishes people for joining a game lobby late in a way that would be too frustrating for the player.

You're assuming a 1-1 numbers ratio. As long as the bv system is done correctly it shouldn't matter if it's 8 vs 12 or whatever-- so your big assault mech won't really matter as far as matching-- just that the numbers add up.

[Ginrummy]

I am an IS savage,barbarin dog surat to the end, even in Table top clan tech was VERY disruptive untill 3068!. Unless the Devs are gonna ramp up to that leave the clans the HELL out of my CBT memories!. At best make a seprate Clan server, atleast everyone would be balanced, but Clan tech vs IS level 1 and spares level 2 no contest!. Leave them out please!!!, seriously I am begging here.

[Eckerson]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

You're assuming a 1-1 numbers ratio. As long as the bv system is done correctly it shouldn't matter if it's 8 vs 12 or whatever-- so your big assault mech won't really matter as far as matching-- just that the numbers add up.

You are correct I was assuming there would be a player limit on the match lobby. I assumed that because it would be easier to handle server load from a technical standpoint if the number of players could be predicted. In an X vs X player match, I know there will be exactly X*2 players in that match. In a purely BV-limited standpoint, they would have to assume load for everyone taking the smallest BV mech and fitting within the limit to make sure they could handle the load.

And then again, even if the team limits were solely BV-based and not number of players, I would still be penalized for joining a match lobby later because the available BV was used up by players who joined before me. If they're shooting for a 12k vs 12k BV match (just making up that number, no basis for realism). By the time I come in, there may only be enough room for a light mech, regardless of the number of players in the lobby on my team.

[Kudzu]

Eckerson, on 18 November 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

You are correct I was assuming there would be a player limit on the match lobby. I assumed that because it would be easier to handle server load from a technical standpoint if the number of players could be predicted. In an X vs X player match, I know there will be exactly X*2 players in that match. In a purely BV-limited standpoint, they would have to assume load for everyone taking the smallest BV mech and fitting within the limit to make sure they could handle the load.

And then again, even if the team limits were solely BV-based and not number of players, I would still be penalized for joining a match lobby later because the available BV was used up by players who joined before me. If they're shooting for a 12k vs 12k BV match (just making up that number, no basis for realism). By the time I come in, there may only be enough room for a light mech, regardless of the number of players in the lobby on my team.

If the matchmaking was done before people got in it would work a lot better, and the bv doesn't have to be the same for every match either since they're all separate instances. you could have one deathmatch that was at 8k per side, the next one picked could be at 22k, etc. Make it flexible enough that all the matchmaker has to do is is go down the list (starting with who has been in queue the longest) and start putting people together.

For example-- the top two in the queue are lances A (6376 bv total) and B (8325 bv total). They get put on opposite sides (they don't see this part). The matchmaker then starts going down the queue and filling in both halves until the bv matches and then the game starts. The matchmaker goes back to the top of the list and begins the cycle all over. Singletons would be a little harder to fit in since I suppose the MM would want to put them into functional lances, but it would work out. No one would have to wait for very long, as they'd be pulled in to even out the sides or eventually make it to the top of the queue.

Edit: as long as you put a top cap on the number per side (say 16 or whatever the servers can handle) the number of players shouldn't matter, only the final bv.

Edited by Kudzu, 18 November 2011 - 09:58 PM.

[Lomack]

You people are arguing about this like you have a say in what type of tech will be available to a particular side. The devs are going to balance the game. They can do that with tech, tonnage restrictions, mission rewards, etc...

Instead of speculating away at how they are going to fix a percieved imbalance, how about we wait till they tell us how they plan to set things up and then we can argue about how good or bad of a solution we think they have.

[Halfinax]

Lomack, on 18 November 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

You people are arguing about this like you have a say in what type of tech will be available to a particular side. The devs are going to balance the game. They can do that with tech, tonnage restrictions, mission rewards, etc...

Instead of speculating away at how they are going to fix a percieved imbalance, how about we wait till they tell us how they plan to set things up and then we can argue about how good or bad of a solution we think they have.

A "percieved" imbalance? unless you factor in Battle Value there is an objective imbalance towards clan technology. It is lighter, has less heat, less weight, and less range restrictions. That isn't perceived it is factual.

[Riptor]

Quote

You people are arguing about this like you have a say in what type of tech will be available to a particular side. The devs are going to balance the game. They can do that with tech, tonnage restrictions, mission rewards, etc...

Instead of speculating away at how they are going to fix a percieved imbalance, how about we wait till they tell us how they plan to set things up and then we can argue about how good or bad of a solution we think they have.

Praise our new corporate overlords eh?

We are the customers... we are going to pay them if we like the game.. if we dont like the game... no money.

So no you cant say that the Devs can do whatever they want and expect to be succesfull. Sure they are not gonna listen specialy to me or you or any single person but they will listen to the overall reaction of people and adjut accordingly (and statistics gathered from the game itselfe.. i hope).

See consumer reaction is a very important thing when you want to sell a product.

If you dont listen atleast a bit to what theconsumers have to say you will go the way of warhammer online, it was more important for mythic to enforce their "vision" of the game onto the players then to ilisten to the people who actually paid for their product. And today mythic does not exist anymore.

[Eckerson]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:56 PM, said:

If the matchmaking was done before people got in it would work a lot better, and the bv doesn't have to be the same for every match either since they're all separate instances. you could have one deathmatch that was at 8k per side, the next one picked could be at 22k, etc. Make it flexible enough that all the matchmaker has to do is is go down the list (starting with who has been in queue the longest) and start putting people together.

For example-- the top two in the queue are lances A (6376 bv total) and B (8325 bv total). They get put on opposite sides (they don't see this part). The matchmaker then starts going down the queue and filling in both halves until the bv matches and then the game starts. The matchmaker goes back to the top of the list and begins the cycle all over. Singletons would be a little harder to fit in since I suppose the MM would want to put them into functional lances, but it would work out. No one would have to wait for very long, as they'd be pulled in to even out the sides or eventually make it to the top of the queue.

Edit: as long as you put a top cap on the number per side (say 16 or whatever the servers can handle) the number of players shouldn't matter, only the final bv.

That is a good point, the matchmaking could handle that balancing for the players. For any extra players that don't fit into a full lance, the system could attach them to the full lances (making them a lance+1). That would prevent that player from being by themselves tactically. If you have 2 or 3 extra, they should be ok as a smaller group (maybe).

Lomack, on 18 November 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

You people are arguing about this like you have a say in what type of tech will be available to a particular side. The devs are going to balance the game. They can do that with tech, tonnage restrictions, mission rewards, etc...

Instead of speculating away at how they are going to fix a percieved imbalance, how about we wait till they tell us how they plan to set things up and then we can argue about how good or bad of a solution we think they have.

I'm sure what the developers come up with ultimately will be fine, but it never hurts to come up with ideas.

[Halfinax]

I don't think we will often see single lance on lance or star on lance or star on star combat. I think we will generally see slightly larger scale combat than we see in the table top game. My only hope is that the devs will use a system of either pure Battle Value per team fight, or a combination of an Elo system and Battle Value fight. I don't want me and my Merc group to be broken up into several smaller combat units to accommodate pubs than I want to see pubs have to go up against a team of organized players.

That should be a last resort. Even within such a mismatched system I'd at least like to see all the pubs to be fighting for the same house or faction.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think that teams amd PUBs should be separate as people used to and set up for playing together with well thought out lances will have a great tactical advantage over ad-hoc lances of strangers in (possibly) mismatched lances with no overall tactcali & strategic control at either the lance or company level.

[Saranpaa]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 09 November 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

I am talking from a game-system perspective, not in-game. Their in-game explanation is just as bad: the idea
that the clans could make better equipment off in deep periphery is akin to saying Puritan colonists in America
would have made a steam engine by the time the American Revolution occurred because they werent fighting a
total war against the French or Spanish...or even better; that Aborigines from Australia would have gunpowder
before anyone else because their tribe was isolated to the deep South Pacific!

Actually the clans just invented the Omnimech. and probably some other stuff as well.

Biggest thing is that the IS degenerated in the 300 years of war they had.

The SLDF had already an amazing level of technology when they left the inner sphere.

Correct me if i´m wrong, please.

[EDMW CSN]

1 to 1 a Clan Omnimech will soundly beat any IS Battlemech / Omnimech. That's a fact. Because on average most Clan mechwarriors are always superior in terms of training (in fluff) and superior technology, that's a fact.

Barring act of plot, luck or superb named characters aka Phantom Mech Morgan Kell, Jamie Wolf, Phelan, Kai Allard Liao etc. Most IS mechwarriors will fall. But IS circumvent this issue by abusing Clan's Zellbrigen to use mass numbers to flatten the Clans.

However for ingame, I won't be surprised if BV is used as some form for Zellbrigen since most Clan tech fits in the 3050 tend to have 2x the BV of IS mechs equal to their weight. To encourage this, the lower number the BV number (on the Clan side as when compared to IS) the better bonuses for the Clanner, be it in c-bills or other forms of player rewards like achievements etc. A Clan Star / Binary / Trinary that overshoots the IS total BV will get no bonuses or even penalties if necessary !!!

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 19 November 2011 - 10:33 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

[EDMW]CSN, on 19 November 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

1 to 1 a Clan Omnimech will soundly beat any IS Battlemech / Omnimech. That's a fact. Because on average most Clan mechwarriors are always superior in terms of training (in fluff) and superior technology, that's a fact.

But in OUR reality (not that of the game's lore), you will see MANY a time that an inexperienced Clan pilot falls to that of an experienced Inner Sphere pilot. Because the pilot is what makes the Mech dangerous.

I would give out my loadout to new players because they always felt the Mech was the danger. Then I'd go head 2 head against someone in my Griever config (down to the 'T') and dominate them, hopefully showing them that "The PILOT makes the Mech dangerous."

[EDMW CSN]

Aegis Kleais™, on 19 November 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

But in OUR reality (not that of the game's lore), you will see MANY a time that an inexperienced Clan pilot falls to that of an experienced Inner Sphere pilot. Because the pilot is what makes the Mech dangerous. I would give out my loadout to new players because they always felt the Mech was the danger. Then I'd go head 2 head against someone in my Griever config (down to the 'T') and dominate them, hopefully showing them that "The PILOT makes the Mech dangerous."

Well I did stated Clanners are better trained...in fluff
In any case BV mechanic should be introduced as a form of Zelbrigen.

If you think your vet buddies in a Clan Star can take on an IS company in a pub, well you should and reap in the bonuses if you do succeed ! If you decide to go with a Binary and maybe match or exceed the BV by a little, that is fine too. Just that you might miss out on the "Honor achievements" that a Clanner should get.

More different gameplay styles, more rewards for all. For IS, the benefits are clear, Clantech and salvage. A Clanner maybe Honor achievements, ability to command greater unit sizes, better access to more sophisticated mechs etc.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 19 November 2011 - 11:06 AM.

[Hodo]

hiemfire, on 14 November 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

It is the rough equivalent of taking one of the 7 pounders mounted on the old British MK.1s against a group carrying 125mm smooth bores (M1A2 Abrams cannon). It can do some damage, but where does the sizable advantage stand.

Actually the Mark I, only had 6pdr guns, on the male version. And the M1A2 Abrams doesnt have a 125mm gun, thats a Russian thing, it has a M256 Rhienmetall 120mm smooth bore cannon. Made by the same company that brought you the 8.8cm (88mm) cannon used on the Tiger, and the 75mm L70 long gun the Panther tank.