Jump to content

Mass vs Cost vs Battle Value


2 replies to this topic

#1 zencynic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:57 AM

After reading through most (but not all) of the 25 pages of posts from this thread http://mwomercs.com/.../page__hl__drop over the last few days, several ideas have been bubbling at the back of my mental stove. This morning, I crunched some numbers for curiosity's sake.

First, a few grains of salt. I only looked at IS mechs from 3025, buildable with Intro (level 1) rules. I found 190 non-custom ones. I's sure there are a few more, but it's a large enough sample size to see trends. The raw data came from Heavy Metal software, so I'm fairly sure it uses Battle Value version 1.0. I did this fast-ish this morning. I might do more later. If nothing else, I will likely look at 3025-3050 IS mechs with Level 1 & 2 rules and 2.0 BVs.

I highlighted certain mech pairings on the output graphs. I have some comments about the pairings, but I'm not going to post them quite yet. I included some basic trend-line information also.

Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

In general, I expect the trend-lines and correlation to be less pronounced with 3050 mechs. I hope this helps a few discussions and/or concerns.

#2 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:15 AM

Interesting, especially the scatter on the cost v BV. Can't even be down to Tech as it's all Level 1. Not sure how many stock mechs we will see a few days after launch if Level 2 tech is available from the start. Most people will go for at least some upgrades even if only DHS.

#3 zencynic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:21 PM

Suggestions at the bottom with ***'s. This was fun. I'll look at 3050 - 3085 later.

A few searches on MUL 2.0 yielded some raw data - Mass and BV 2.0 for 215 Inner Sphere mechs from the Succession Wars created using introductory and standard rule-sets.

Posted Image

After poking around the data a bit I found some areas to prune. There were a few clan mechs mixed in, some from odd time periods, a few custom/unique jobs, and some Wolf's Dragoons silliness. I ended up cutting 25 mechs for a revised list of 190. As you can see below, the deviation from the trend-line is significantly less.

Posted Image

I found it interesting that the 4 worst BVs were Wasp variants.

The Jenner JR7-F is a joy to pilot. I remember asking for one in a Merc campaign and getting a JR7-D instead. :) Less armor and things that explode inside me. Sure enough, I soon lost that mech to an internal ammo explosion... sigh. Still, good times.

I was impressed by the Zeus ZEU-5T. I think the design benefited in the comparison by being created at the very beginning of the first Succession war. I considered cutting the data point, but chose to leave it and a any similar ones in.

I could write a thesis on why most (but not all) Charger designs are sub-optimal. I get the feeling it was designed by committee. On the base model (CGR-1A1), even sticking with Intro rules, you can make a better mech simply by dropping 5 tones of mass, maxing your armor and adding a large laser. Is this a good fast heavy? No, but its much better than an assault mech that can't take or hold ground.

I was impressed by the Marauder II MAD-4A. It exceeds 2000 BV (2.0) using only Intro construction rules. >300 armor, lots of heat sinks to soak up crits and IT JUMPS! :P All from a 3012 design, nice.

For the curious, the green circles in the assault weight range above show mechs built with level 1 / Introductory / 3025 rules. Overall, about 75% of the mechs in the revised data were Level 1. I was slightly surprised, but that trend held for the assault class.

*** I like the idea of a mechlab with some, but not all, of the freedom of the Table Top rules. Especially, pre-omnimech technology. I am ok with a hardpoints system in theory. I had no trouble with the one in MW4. I will wait for the Founders Beta before passing judgement on such things.

*** I like the idea of BV based matchmaking in PUG, general play environment. Let me play teamed up with some friends (maybe up to a lance of us). I don't see any need to be able to pick my opponents in general PUG play. Let me play what chassis and load-out I want (assuming I have earned it / unlocked it / etc). If we play with a lance of 4 BV 2000 assault mechs, great, make sure your match making algorithm has options for us. Maybe we only get 2 more players (medium 800s) and the 6 of us face 4 heavies, 6 Mediums and 2 lights totaling (9500-10000). Maybe we have to wait longer (just let us know that the longer wait is due to our high collective BV)

*** I want to see MW4:Mercs Solaris style play that is NOT BV capped. Let us bring in out shiniest toys allowed by the weight class. 10 players, no teams, last man standing wins. Make it cost for repairs time and C-bills. "oh you lost a leg on your Jenner? That will be 500,000 C-bills and you cant use that mech in Solaris combat for 2 hours. Give us an eject button, or better still a programable auto-eject that you can set parameters for "ending the pain". At the upper levels of competitive play, I would like to see at least 2 options. One BV balenced and one where I actually get an edge for the toys my time and effort have accrued.

*** I want to see some sort of salvage possible in merc campaigns, but I never want to lose my chassis. Always give me the option to repair it, it might be expensive, but make it an option.

*** I NEVER want to be or see a dispossessed player in this game for any length of time more than 5 real life minutes, even at the F2P level. Give me options. Let me take a loan with the company store, but I only earn 1/2 XP till I pay it back. Give me a free, but unable to be traded/sold, light or medium chassis - maybe one that is selling the slowest on the market. Please don't let me hear people begging in trade channels for a free mechs.

*** In general, let me do what I want, but let there be consequences as well. Thank you.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users