48 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

Just thinking about a good way to balance teams better. Weight would help. But a stock Atlas is very different that a fully custom Atlas. So yo still end up with the balance being. But if the cost of the mechs including custom items like engines and modules is factored in it makes much more even teams mech wise. Although I would think at the moment there are not enough people playing to do this and not have to wait a long time for games.

[gjnii]

I like this plan as it will ensure that as long as I run my heavy with a standard engine I will likely be paired against a light or medium mech with an XL engine. Since I don't use lights, but I enjoy shooting them with my heavies, I think this is a win for everyone.

[Captain Katawa]

Sounds stupid since mech skeleton(structure) costs nearly nothing while LBX10 is the most exensive weapon in the game and the most expensive part of all is an engine.

Did you know that A Cicada with an XL330 + Endo + DHS + ECM costs almost like two atlases running STD 300?

[A Man In A Can]

This actually is not a bad idea, and you are right. Pure weight matching does not address the issue of stock vs custom/min-max builds.

Since there is no concept of battle value in the game, but there IS a C-bill value of your mech that is known by the game, the MM could be modified to use the C-bill values of every mech in the team to be and match them against teams that are close to the same c-bill investment. This would also help potentially balance IS vs Clan battles as Clan Omnimechs and equipment are usually a LOT more expensive than their IS counterparts.

Of course there are C-bill oddities like the LBX - which was given that value due to the original TT ability to fire both standard and cluster rounds. We shall see what happens later to that weapon to make it more valuable.

But in the meantime, the real questions are, would these values supplement the current system, or would they replace the current system? What happens when there is a really expensive mech on the field that can't be balanced with another equivalent mech in the queue? Would the MM average the C-bill values of the team in the queue? Would this factor in costs to upgrade, or would it only consider pure equipment/module value?

Edited by CYBRN4CR, 20 July 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Noesis]

Its an interesting metric to consider for balancing drops or applying limits. And economical interests you'd think tied to the overall interests of how things operate to some extent (which did correlate to some extent with BV). It would certainly help when linking more expensive tech use for an equivalent Mech and help to bring in module use also in theory. Whether KISS engineering with tonnage may win through though I'm unsure atm.

How about putting some examples and/or pretty graphs to help explore the point, just for the sake of science of course?

[Khobai]

Absolutely horrible idea. Do you really want noobs with LB10Xs and XL engines on their Atlases to drag down the whole team? Just because a component is expensive doesn't mean its good.

[Davers]

I really don't think Cbill balancing would work. XL engines don't always improve mech's performance. FF armor costs a lot more than ES structure for much less benefit. Unfortunately the cost of items is based on TT rules, which really don't apply well to MWO.

[Noesis]

Khobai, on 20 July 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Absolutely horrible idea. Do you really want noobs with LB10Xs and XL engines on their Atlases to drag down the whole team? Just because a component is expensive doesn't mean its good.

Though with simple tonnage limits this same problem exists potentially even if its perhaps an odd example?

Edited by Noesis, 20 July 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

BattleValue can't really be put into MW:O due to the differences in how each weapon operates and their effective use.

It'll be too big of a problem to balance.


Now, mech worth, C-Bill cost... that has promise.

[Khobai]

The only thing that would work is assigning a battle value to everything based on how good the item is. And certain things like XL engines would have to have dynamic battles values because an XL engine in an Atlas is crap where an XL engine in a Jenner is extremely good.

Quote

Now, mech worth, C-Bill cost... that has promise.

It really doesnt have any promise. C-bill cost is not in any way indicative of balance. For example, LB10Xs cost 800k while AC/20s and ERPPCs only cost 600k.

Edited by Khobai, 20 July 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[A Man In A Can]

How about we combine all three into what the MM considers? Player elo + tonnage + cost? Not necessarily with that formula.

[Unbound Inferno]

Khobai, on 20 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

The only thing that would work is assigning battles values to everything based on how good the item is. And certain things like XL engines would have to have dynamic battles values because an XL engine in an Atlas is crap where an XL engine in a Jenner is extremely good.

CYBRN4CR, on 20 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

How about we combine all three into what the MM considers? Player elo + tonnage + cost? Not necessarily with that formula.

That can work I think.


Player Win/Loss x Mech Cost / Mech Weight

[SubRyan]

You mean something like an implement that is already widely available aka Battle Value?

[Khobai]

Another option might be to have an entirely dynamic battle value system where the battle value increases the more a weapon is used and decreases the less a weapon is used. What that would do is create a constantly evolving metagame which would cycle through different weapons being dominant over time. It would prevent the game from getting stuck in slumps where a single weapon dominates all others like PPC currently do. It takes the concept of perfect imbalance from LoL and applies it to MWO.

Edited by Khobai, 20 July 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

SubRyan, on 20 July 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

You mean something like an implement that is already widely available aka Battle Value?

No. The Battle Value system was based around the inaccurate Battletech game system.

The numbers for what determined BV would be different in MW:O if the same things were taken into consideration.


Thus we need something else.

Khobai, on 20 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

It really doesnt have any promise. C-bill cost is not in any way indicative of balance. For example, LB10Xs cost 800k while AC/20s and ERPPCs only cost 600k.

True, but its a start - and whatever you do to a mech to custom it automatically puts it in a different place than stock.

[Khobai]

Quote

No. The Battle Value system was based around the inaccurate Battletech game system.

The concept of battle value is fine. Theyre just numbers. Numbers can be changed.

[superteds]

cost =/= effectiveness in this game.

LBX has been mentioned already, most expensive in this game but it's basically trash.

[Khobai]

Quote

True, but its a start - and whatever you do to a mech to custom it automatically puts it in a different place than stock.

Its not a start. All that accomplishes is adding a new way for players to abuse the game. I can make a low cost Stalker with a standard engine that will obliterate any mech twice its cost easily.

[Unbound Inferno]

Khobai, on 20 July 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

The concept of battle value is fine. Theyre just numbers. Numbers can be changed.

I'm not arguing that, but we can't use BV numbers is what I am saying.

Khobai, on 20 July 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Its not a start. All that accomplishes is adding a new way for players to abuse the game. I can make a low cost Stalker with a standard engine that will obliterate any mech twice its cost easily.

That is why it needs working on.

An XL engine or Std engine of similar weight should be similar enough in that value not to do that.

All I'm saying is its a start to keep newbies with stock-nothing away from someone having Siesmic and a top-tweaked mech.

[Noesis]

Which does raise an interesting question that when weapons reach a considered balanced point hopefully in readiness for CW to have an confidence as to how to apply strategy for tech acquisition. Will their economical values be revised accordingly for this understanding in MWO? This would then of course make the application of the C-bill value much more acceptable for balance considerations, with perhaps some tweaks here and there for some of the relevant issues mentioned above (e.g. XL engines).

Also given CW may apply different economic advantages for tech how does this effect things other than the advantage to purchase things. With the fact CW wont be a complete sandbox I expect controls for the economy to stay within close sensible limits with some slight advantages based on activities etc. So perhaps the market wont fluctuate so much based on supply and demand, though it would be interesting to know if the economy has any dynamic elements.