13 replies to this topic

[jojobear]

In determining how powerful your lance could be, the mechwarrior games have traditionally put a limit on the total tonnage of your lance (fluffed in the games as a Dropship Load). The idea being that the weightier heavy and assault mechs are more powerful than lights and mediums.

One of MWO's stated goals is that Mediums and Lights are just as important and useful as Heavies and Assaults.

With this in mind, I suggest that mechs, weapons, and equipment be assigned a Battle Value like in the tabletop game. A mech has a base BV score, with weapons and equipment adding to that BV score. The total BV of a lance then indicates the lances overall power.

I feel this is a far more accurate way to determine the balance between teams, as it takes into account not just mech weight class, but also weapons and equipment and the individual characteristics of the mech itself.

When and if clan mechs are introduced for player use, the BV system really shows off its advantage. Clan mechs, weapons, and equipment will have higher BV scores. Players who seek the advantage of clan tech will have to make due with less in order to meet the team BV limits.

With this scheme, players who insist on using lower-BV technology are rewarded with the ability to field more mechs, weapons, and equipment.


Actually, don't bother assigning BV for everything. Just use the already-given C-Bill values in the same scheme outlined above.

[TheRulesLawyer]

jojobear, on 10 November 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

In determining how powerful your lance could be, the mechwarrior games have traditionally put a limit on the total tonnage of your lance (fluffed in the games as a Dropship Load). The idea being that the weightier heavy and assault mechs are more powerful than lights and mediums.

One of MWO's stated goals is that Mediums and Lights are just as important and useful as Heavies and Assaults.

With this in mind, I suggest that mechs, weapons, and equipment be assigned a Battle Value like in the tabletop game. A mech has a base BV score, with weapons and equipment adding to that BV score. The total BV of a lance then indicates the lances overall power.

I feel this is a far more accurate way to determine the balance between teams, as it takes into account not just mech weight class, but also weapons and equipment and the individual characteristics of the mech itself.

When and if clan mechs are introduced for player use, the BV system really shows off its advantage. Clan mechs, weapons, and equipment will have higher BV scores. Players who seek the advantage of clan tech will have to make due with less in order to meet the team BV limits.

With this scheme, players who insist on using lower-BV technology are rewarded with the ability to field more mechs, weapons, and equipment.


Actually, don't bother assigning BV for everything. Just use the already-given C-Bill values in the same scheme outlined above.

Nah, c-bills and bv are different. 100 ton 3025 mech can be the same BV as a much lighter clan mech yet cost much less in cbills.

[UncleKulikov]

A Battle Value derived from MWO's mechanics should be used to calculate Lance/Star strength. It's the best way to ensure fairness while allowing mech customization.

[Amechwarrior]

Something like this will be necessary for Clan vs. IS conflicts. However lets look at how this will effect House on House games. What is battle value?

You put it at the value of a whole lance of 'mechs. This games major goal is for role based warfare. Would a lance of one of each weight class/role have a higher BV then a all Assault lance? They would have all the perks of each class, but the 4 assaults sticking together is a powerhouse combo, should the 4 assaults have a higher team BV?

The problem becomes this, lets say I drive an assault. This is my favorite 'mech, I paid money for this variant, I own 10 of the minis in TT and know every canon fact about it in and out. This is MY 'mech. This 'mech happens to have a high BV, every match I go in people tell me "Don't use that **** you are soaking up all of our points brah! I need those points more then you for my l33t Urbanmech scouting skillz drop that 100 ton **** can."

If you tag the values at the lance level, casual pick-up games will have everyone fighting to bring in their own most effective design at the cost of their teammates. This leads to bad blood and bad teamwork. Some kind of BV system is probably a good idea to balance Clan/IS scraps. But it needs to find a way to let everyone use the designs they want.

Maybe something where a higher BV 'mech gets less cash or xp per kill. You got a better 'mech, it is easier for you to rack up points, so you get less points per kill then they guys who use the lower BV designs. I do not really like this idea, but it is all I can come up with. However, it detaches bv/tonnage from the team aspect, allowing people to use the design they want. The concept of what makes one design higher BV then another will have to be reworked but I think it can add to the game and promote 'mech variety on the field.

[UncleKulikov]

Or they could round to the nearest 500 for BV in a match, or something like that. World of Tanks has some kind of system to match tanks based on their differences.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Amechwarrior, on 10 November 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:

Something like this will be necessary for Clan vs. IS conflicts. However lets look at how this will effect House on House games. What is battle value?

You put it at the value of a whole lance of 'mechs. This games major goal is for role based warfare. Would a lance of one of each weight class/role have a higher BV then a all Assault lance? They would have all the perks of each class, but the 4 assaults sticking together is a powerhouse combo, should the 4 assaults have a higher team BV?

The problem becomes this, lets say I drive an assault. This is my favorite 'mech, I paid money for this variant, I own 10 of the minis in TT and know every canon fact about it in and out. This is MY 'mech. This 'mech happens to have a high BV, every match I go in people tell me "Don't use that **** you are soaking up all of our points brah! I need those points more then you for my l33t Urbanmech scouting skillz drop that 100 ton **** can."

If you tag the values at the lance level, casual pick-up games will have everyone fighting to bring in their own most effective design at the cost of their teammates. This leads to bad blood and bad teamwork. Some kind of BV system is probably a good idea to balance Clan/IS scraps. But it needs to find a way to let everyone use the designs they want.

Maybe something where a higher BV 'mech gets less cash or xp per kill. You got a better 'mech, it is easier for you to rack up points, so you get less points per kill then they guys who use the lower BV designs. I do not really like this idea, but it is all I can come up with. However, it detaches bv/tonnage from the team aspect, allowing people to use the design they want. The concept of what makes one design higher BV then another will have to be reworked but I think it can add to the game and promote 'mech variety on the field.

I image they'll have both single queue and lance queue matches. If you're in lance queue, you'll just work it out among friends. If you're in single queue you'll just end up with smaller lance mates most of the time. You'll be able to use your mech, but be prepared to lose alot if you're packing high BV and suck.

[MagnusEffect]

why not BOTH? have BV limitations for individuals and also BV and tonnage limitations for the group as a whole (or something similar that is balanced). true, in most cases, matches will need to be set to groups with equal BV, but image the case of a raiding party attacking a garrison force?:

The raiding party will likely be veterans with better equipment (i.e. higher BV per mech), but stricter tonnage limitations due to dropship restrictions.

The responding garrison force will likely be secondary reserve units (lower BV per mech), but tonnage limitations would be far less constrained since they do *live* on the planet.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 10 November 2011 - 04:18 PM.

[Amechwarrior]

Been thinking about this and I do not really know if we need some kind of external balancing metric for IS on IS team play. The roles of 'mechs confounds this kind of system and we do not know enough about how roles or basic gameplay like "shooting" will even work.

Lets say I have two assault 'mechs one of them is a command 'mech, say Atlas. One of them is a brawler, a gun boat say an Annihilator. Which one should have a higher BV and why? If you weight it on firepower the ANH will be valued more, but what the contribution to the team the command role offers gives the Atlas the advantage in the team based environment we will be playing in. What if a player uses the commanders 'mech as a brawler, the Atlas is very capable in firefights, his BV as a brawler role is lower then the ANH, but practically much higher then most heavies built for fighting.

I think the emphasis on role based teamwork is capable of self correcting these issues. The problem of assigning these 'mechs one value number clouds their usefulness in team play. You could simply have multiple BVs for each role like "This 'mech is a 4 in fighting and a perfect 10 in command!" But I also just do not like the taste in my mouth when I think of Battlemechs that way.

[Rendall]

If they implement a time requirement to change mech parts out (if they include the ability) how can BV be applied in a reasonable manner? How can BV or even C-bills apply to excellent skill, lucky breaks, quick or smart thinking, or good tactics?

[AchtungGutenTag]

I don't think mechs should enter into it at all. Why not just limit it based on player level? As long as the average player level for each lance is close to the same, it should be a relatively fair fight.

[Dozer]

tbh the match making system will contain multiple variables to ensure some type of balance, from role, BV, pilot skills, premade versus solo, individual wait times etc. It won't be any one variable but the combination that will match groups as close and as evenly as possible. It won't always get it right because the idea is to get people in a match asap. It will require constant tweaking and refinement. I think we should keep that in mind rather than focus on a simple 'this is the only way' mechanic.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Amechwarrior, on 10 November 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

Lets say I have two assault 'mechs one of them is a command 'mech, say Atlas. One of them is a brawler, a gun boat say an Annihilator. Which one should have a higher BV and why? If you weight it on firepower the ANH will be valued more, but what the contribution to the team the command role offers gives the Atlas the advantage in the team based environment we will be playing in. What if a player uses the commanders 'mech as a brawler, the Atlas is very capable in firefights, his BV as a brawler role is lower then the ANH, but practically much higher then most heavies built for fighting.

BV is very well defined on how its calculated. Generally it assumes that you'll use any mech to the best of its abilities. If you bring the wrong mech to a fight its really on you.

[UncleKulikov]

AchtungGutenTag, on 10 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

I don't think mechs should enter into it at all. Why not just limit it based on player level? As long as the average player level for each lance is close to the same, it should be a relatively fair fight.

Absolutely incorrect. If I take a spider, and even if I"m amazing at using a spider, and I get hit by an AC20, the game is over for me. Some mechs are inherently less capable than others, and it should be calculated into the matchmaking experience so that the lower value mechs can still get played.

Rendall, on 10 November 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

If they implement a time requirement to change mech parts out (if they include the ability) how can BV be applied in a reasonable manner? How can BV or even C-bills apply to excellent skill, lucky breaks, quick or smart thinking, or good tactics?

BV isn't applied to those, because that's what Pilot Rating (should be based on win-loss) is for. Battle Value only looks at hard, objective qualities of the equipment that is brought into play, assuming all players are of equal talent, skill, and reflexes.

Edited by UncleKulikov, 11 November 2011 - 12:57 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

UncleKulikov, on 11 November 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

BV isn't applied to those, because that's what Pilot Rating (should be based on win-loss) is for. Battle Value only looks at hard, objective qualities of the equipment that is brought into play, assuming all players are of equal talent, skill, and reflexes.

I seriously wouldn't mind if players had a elo ranking and both that and pilot level affected your BV. It would lead to more even matches. If nothing else if would make sure the really good players weren't beating up on the newbies 'cause their elo's would be too different to get a match.