43 replies to this topic

[GingerBang]

And say yes, to battle value.


It factors in a weapons value, along side the mech tonnage. It is the best of both worlds. The problem with tonnage limits, is that it makes damage per ton all the more valuable. It does nothing to remove the zomgppc meta game, and all the big mechs taking it. It will just make you see a lot more K2's, Dragons, and Cataphracts returning to PPC's and Guass rifles. With battlevalues, an atlas running LRM's, medium lasers, and say an AC/2, would be valued less than a highlander running all PPC's.

Suddenly brawling is dynamic. Snipers are limited size and statue, and lights made for recon get bigger allies for backup than a light fitted to do all sorts of damage.



I'm contractually obligated against laying out any specific numbers on how this can be done, but I assure you it isn't that difficult to lay out if you start at table-top values and give it a little tweaking. All you need to do is account for everyone having a C3, and there being no dice-roll dependent weaponry.

Edited by GingerBang, 18 August 2013 - 08:41 AM.

[New Day]

I don't trust them balancing BV.

[YueFei]

They should just make Role Warfare a reality and then you won't need tonnage limits. All weight classes will have vital roles, and stacking all of the same weight class should come with a severe drawback that a team with multiple weight classes can exploit, if they play smart.

[James The Fox Dixon]

This>BV 'nuff said.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 18 August 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[BookWyrm]

Far too many factors to consider with battle value. Simple math is much easier to get right. If we're going to start considering weapons, loadout, weight, etc., then we might as well start considering pilot value too...level of inebriation, gaming rig, system specs, amount of sleep, loud children in the same room. When does the madness stop!?

Edited by BookWyrm, 18 August 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Kibble]

I would love to see BV. I believe awhile back PGI has stated they did try it and it didn't work. Unfortunately they never provided any details on this. I would really like to know the numbers and what they did excatly. Too bad we will never get BV. Too bad the weight matching will be broken. Too bad to fix it they will do a bandaid fix for it. Thus the circle of life.....

Edited by Kibble, 18 August 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[GingerBang]

NamesAreStupid, on 18 August 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I don't trust them balancing BV.

I'll give you that... PGI's lack of dynamic concepts and basic math skills could completely ruin BV if the wrong person does it.

[GingerBang]

Kibble, on 18 August 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

I would love to see BV. I believe awhile back PGI has stated they did try it and it didn't work. Unfortunately they never provided any details on this. I would really like to know the numbers and what they did excatly. Too bad we will never get BV. Too bad the weight matching will be broken. Too bad to fix it they will do a bandaid fix for it. Thus the circle of life.....

I'm sure they used PGI math and not real arithmetic.

Edited by GingerBang, 18 August 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[FuzzyLog1c]

James The Fox Dixon, on 18 August 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

This>BV 'nuff said.

Great link. That post is freaking fascinating.

[jakucha]

Battle value is worthless until weapons are mostly balance, so I'd rather have tonnage limits.

[Foxfire]

Why not reintroduce class matching until a robust system can be implemented?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I'm sure that could get access to the BV3 figures that are being developed. It would need adding to UI2 for the mechlab.
It won't be perfect but it's better than nothing. Pilot skill is taken care of by Elo ( ). Put it on the test server, preferably for more than a couple of hours on two days, see what happens.
There are a number of people on this forum who can help with where there have been problems/loopholes. Even just posting up the list of numbers that they are considering would get feedback on possible anomalies
I know I'm biased - I'd probably give the present incarnation of "ECM" a BV of 250,000.
It would also need adjusting if changes were made to weapons, but if the system was set up correctly to start with it shouldn't be too bad.
For teams it would be Ok. i can see there being problems with PUG matches, or where PUGs are chosen as fillers, where you could have people in trial mechs added to "balance" the numbers.
How would people feel about asymetrical matches ie 10v12 to match BV's within a reasonable tiime?

[James The Fox Dixon]

FuzzyLog1c, on 18 August 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Great link. That post is freaking fascinating.

Glad you like it. It's a work in progress in adding in all the factions and how their compositions are.

[Gremlich Johns]

you can say no to tonnage limits if the Clans ever show up. Until then, I think it is needed.

[IceSerpent]

Clantech is not very relevant here - tonnage limits won't work for IS mechs either, as mechs of the same weight can (and do) pack vastly different loadouts.

[James The Fox Dixon]

IceSerpent, on 18 August 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Clantech is not very relevant here - tonnage limits won't work for IS mechs either, as mechs of the same weight can (and do) pack vastly different loadouts.

Yes, there is a variety of load outs which is where tactics come into play and requires the use of tonnage limits. By utilizing tonnage limits, you are bringing in the four pillars of what this game is supposed to be built around.

[Screech]

But they are using weight limits. They are replacing arbitrary group limits with arbitrary weight limits. They are doing this to simplify the process for the matchmaker to only balance by group size and Elo score. If the matchmaker couldn't handle the stress of balancing simple tonnage I would imagine it would collapse from any, still undefined, BV system.

Edited by Screech, 18 August 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Screech, on 18 August 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

But they are using weight limits. They are replacing arbitrary group limits with arbitrary weight limits. They are doing this to simplify the process for the matchmaker to only balance by group size and Elo score. If the matchmaker couldn't handle the stress of balancing simple tonnage I would imagine it would collapse from any, still undefined, BV system.

They didn't say anything about if they were keeping ELO or not. The problem with ELO is that when CW comes out it will fragment the playbase even further since high ELO teams cannot fight a battle against a low ELO group for planetary control. It just won't work.

[Hotthedd]

jakucha, on 18 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Battle value is worthless until weapons are mostly balance, so I'd rather have tonnage limits.

THIS x 1,000,000!

If you think weapon balance is bad now, IMAGINE what will happen when a weapon with a low B.V. is actually better than a weapon with a high B.V.

In a perfect world, I would advocate the B.V. system, but the idea of PGI's balancing team influencing that system scares the living schitt out of me.

[Master Q]

It really doesn't matter what they do, but some form of balancing desperately needs to take place.