39 replies to this topic

[Dreden Aelnir]

While I applaud the design teams attempt to balance 12v12 drops I believe that tonnage is the absolutely wrong means to do so. Anyone who has played the table top game knows the "magic" that is BV and this should be what is used to calculate balance between opposing forces.

For comparison:

Under a tonnage system both the following mechs would be considered "equal"..

CGR-1A1 Charger, 80 tons
VTR-9B [C] Victor, 80 tons

Anyone who has played the table top understands the laughable comparison of these two mechs as the Charger is even less of a threat then an Urbie without ammo. It carries....wait for it...5 SMALL LASERS...yeah that's it. While the clan refit of the Victor has a gauss rifle, streak-4 and two ER mediums, jumps and is pretty much bad ***...

However under a BV system of balance you would get TWO worthless Chargers for every Victor you field.

CGR-1A1, 981 BV (2.0)
VTR-9B [C]. 1925 BV (2.0)

It is a FAR more accurate way to determine a unit's effectiveness on the battlefield, and is a fairly simple formula to incorporate into the game.

Dreden Aelnir
Ebonheart Dragoons

Edited by Dreden Aelnir, 10 December 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[RedDragon]

Yeah well, we had this discussion countless times in the past. It boils down to:

• A large percentage of Users wants something like BV
  
• PGI is too lazy to include anything that means work on their side
  
• The people who are against BV would rather have no means of evening the battles than a "not so perfect" BV system, which at least would be a start
  
• Tonnage limits is better than nothing (which is true, but a sad fact that we learned to cheer for anything "better than nothing" from PGI)

[HammerSwarm]

charger is not currently in game.

The best solution is battle value as that would take into account your mechs equipment.

You have to imagine what a pain the the butt that would be for organized groups to coordinate though? Just size alone seems like it will be a task. Perhaps not but we'll see.

Size limiting is a great stepping stone towards battle value and seems like it is a low work addition that would help 12 mans be more competitive, curb the bigger better arms race, and give the whole game a shake up.

[Timuroslav]

I totally agree with the original point and have stressed before how Tonnage limits will work until Hybrid Tech comes out. It is a fact that the older mechs will become more obsolete with the newer mechs. look at the Mackie, that thing could not fight anything in the current game.

The problem with Battlevalue is that it is extremely arbitrary.
The other problem which people tend to ignore is this. War is not fair, people are not going to have equal terrain to fight on, lots of people are ambushed. Sun Tzu would point this out.

Edited by Timuroslav, 10 December 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Sidekick]

Timuroslav, on 10 December 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

The other problem which people tend to ignore is this. War is not fair, people are not going to have equal terrain to fight on, lots of people are ambushed. Sun Tzu would point this out.

Too bad that this isn´t a war someone wants to win but a game everybody wants to enjoy. So stick Ol´Tzus wisdom where the armor is thin and get into the mind of a game designer and the player as something abstract, not just the one who is winning due some kind of advantage.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Too bad that this isn´t a war someone wants to win but a game everybody wants to enjoy. So stick Ol´Tzus wisdom where the armor is thin and get into the mind of a game designer and the player as something abstract, not just the one who is winning due some kind of advantage.

This. It's a game, and not just any game but specifically a real time competitive multiplayer shooter. Any argument for or against any design feature ever that ignores this fact is invalid even if the conclusions happen to be ones you agree with. I agree that when faced with otherwise equivalent choices the design should favor the established universe and reality in that order, but whenever canon or realism conflicts with what's viable and fun in a game and specifically in this game there needs to be a damn good reason to go against fun, and it needs to be explicitly stated.

Going back to the topic of the thread, weight matching and weight limits aren't perfect, but I think this is one of those situations where perfect is the enemy of good. Even having a team of human beings personally examine every player and build balanced teams can't produce perfect matches in the eyes of 100% of the people 100% of the time. Pointing out the shortcomings of some particular matching method isn't particularly useful without comparing it against alternatives.

Ultimately I think the optimal solution would be a well researched and carefully tuned mathematical system that accounts for mech size and equipment, player skill, and also time spent by that player in that particular mech. This would probably resemble BV in some respects, but it wouldn't actually be BV. Also, whether this optimal solution is the optimal use of resources is a very different question.

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 10 December 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Sidekick]

Also see my post to a completely different/the same topic:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2975451

[Hans Von Lohman]

Dreden Aelnir, on 10 December 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

While I applaud the design teams attempt to balance 12v12 drops I believe that tonnage is the absolutely wrong means to do so. Anyone who has played the table top game knows the "magic" that is BV and this should be what is used to calculate balance between opposing forces.

For comparison:

Under a tonnage system both the following mechs would be considered "equal"..

CGR-1A1 Charger, 80 tons
VTR-9B [C] Victor, 80 tons

Anyone who has played the table top understands the laughable comparison of these two mechs as the Charger is even less of a threat then an Urbie without ammo. It carries....wait for it...5 SMALL LASERS...yeah that's it.

Dreden Aelnir
Ebonheart Dragoons

This example is actually quite terrible. The fact is the Charger would probably be a GOOD design in MWO. I almost never seen stock loadouts in the game.

When the Charger is added, and you came across a Charger in this game, it would probably be fully upgraded and quite dangerous.

No, tonnage limits are a great idea as the fact is that lots of smaller mechs are more effective than one big mech. I would be perfectly fine with going into a game of 400 tons with your team with 1 Atlas D-DC and 3 Highlanders against my team of 8 Centurions, Shadow Hawks and Jenners.

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 10 December 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[FupDup]

What's better than both tonnage limits and BV is Role Warfare.

http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare


Basically, every mech would have a role on the battlefield that makes it useful to its team. All mechs would be valuable and fun to play on their own merits, rather than simply saying "You are driving an utterly pathetic mech, so we'll just lower your BV!" Under TL and BV, not all mechs are valuable assets to their team. Under either system, a Highlander or Victor is still more useful than nearly any other mech--they'd just take up more resources.

Under Role Warfare, nobody would be inherently superior in every way to anybody else in terms of mech choice (although player skill and other variables would still apply of course), and people would actually choose mediums and lights because those classes enhance their chances of victory in certain scenarios, rather than playing those classes because they are forced to.

Edited by FupDup, 10 December 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[Sidekick]

Well...

NO.

Roloe warefare is a concept of "who does what" in the game, not a concept of how to keep A from outclassing B. The roles artillery, lineman, flanker, scout, tank, commandpost, etc would rise from the limitation of ressources that BV or WL would imply. Once ou don´t have to outgun everything on the field, the roles would grow by themself.

Still, I think that the modification of mechs needs an equalizer, not just weight limit.

[CDLord HHGD]

So, for a MWO BV formula would this work?

Firepower Value + Tonnage = BV

Using stock loadouts:
Atlas RS = 52.50 + 100 = 152.5
Atlas D = 74 + 100 = 174
Highlander 733C = 64 + 90 = 154
Victor 9B = 38 + 80 = 118

Trying to keep it simple here, I know there are tons more factors, but do we need to get that complicated? Seems the above examples might be pretty good. Tonnage is a constant and the firepower varies with the weapons loadout. We could device value to everything from ECM to DHS to XL to everything, but again, simplicity is important.

Now limit drops to 500-700 value points. Dunno there, just throwing out numbers.

[FupDup]

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Well...

NO.

Well...YES.

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Roloe warefare is a concept of "who does what" in the game, not a concept of how to keep A from outclassing B.

Yes it is, at least in most of the forum posts that refer to it. Under RW your team would actually NEED certain types of roles fulfilled to be "competitive." If you lacked a dedicated scout, for instance, you'd be at some kind of disadvantage against a more evenly-balanced team. Or if you lacked medium mechs, etc. etc.

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

The roles artillery, lineman, flanker, scout, tank, commandpost, etc would rise from the limitation of ressources that BV or WL would imply. Once ou don´t have to outgun everything on the field, the roles would grow by themself.

In current gameplay the only role most of the time is killing robots. Making players use mediums more often by limiting larger mechs does not suddenly increase the usefulness of non-killing roles, nor does it change the fact that heavies and assaults are almost always superior--you know, the reason that people spam large mechs in the first place? How many people would volunteer to drive an inferior mech just so that their teammates can upgrade to something and more fun? Mechs need to be useful on their own merits to make people diversify. Neither BV nor WL make mediums (excluding Shawks) powerful contributors to their team, it just makes them forced.

Edited by FupDup, 10 December 2013 - 02:00 PM.

[Blurry]

anything that can reduce the one sided non stop 12-1 stomps would be very welcome
anything that gets things closer to a 12-11 or 720 v750 would be very welcome
anything that could add fun and even things out would be a very welcome edition.

Players dont want that - they want to drop in premades hang back and let the pugs eat it and they swoop in for the easy kills and get brag about how leet they are.
Not to mention earn more $ for doing so.

Anything that gets to solo q would be a welcome change - but then above ma statz are so big k:dr 6.7:1 I is leeet!

Your role is to run out and die so others can move in, right? that is the point correct? let them absorb the punishment and deal some damage so others can finish it?

Edited by Blurry, 10 December 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[Sidekick]

The role of heavys and assaults would shift once there are fewer of them on the field. Then current "bigger is better" gameplay stems from the limitless ressources the teams field.

FupDup, on 10 December 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Yes it is, at least in most of the forum posts that refer to it. Under RW your team would actually NEED certain types of roles fulfilled to be "competitive." If you lacked a dedicated scout, for instance, you'd be at some kind of disadvantage against a more evenly-balanced team. Or if you lacked medium mechs, etc. etc.

How exactly this would work you have to explain. From my point of view, this seems dysfunctional. You "need" a scouting role.... for what, please? If I know where the enemy might or might not appear, I don´t need to scout.

Scouting in other games (WOT, for example) is needed so other roles can do their work, they also counter other roles. Scouts complement your teams artillery, while countering the enemies arty and hunters. Hunters complement the mediums, while they counter the heavies. Heavies complement the whole team while countering the mediums.

In fantasy rpgs, a scout/thief counters enemy casters (long range support), healers/buffers, finds traps (in PVE-Settings) and has "tool" functionality like lockpick, tracking, etc.

In MWO, these mechanics don´t apply. The only thing a scout can do is capstealing/capracing and limited targeting for artillery. But since MWO´s artillery becomes less effective with range, the ability to mark a target outside of engagement range is pointless.

So, please, again: Explain to me how roles in MWO would/should work without tonnage/ressource limitation.

Edited by Sidekick, 10 December 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[FupDup]

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

The role of heavys and assaults would shift once there are fewer of them on the field. Then current "bigger is better" gameplay stems from the limitless ressources the teams field.

Heavies and assaults are not superior because of limitless resources, they are superior because they are more suited to fulfilling the primary objective of this game: killing robots. Mechs with a lot of armor and firepower are more effective at destroying members of the enemy team than a medium or light is by their very nature.

For instance, a Highlander would still be exponentially more effective and useful to your team than a Trebuchet. Similarly, a Blackjack would never be as effective as a Victor under BV or WL, ever. You might not be able to have as many fatties, but they are still the most useful players on your team. All you're doing is increasing the amount of fodder and reducing the number of cannons. Limiting resources simply makes teams have to kill each other with less firepower and armor on both sides.

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

How exactly this would work you have to explain. From my point of view, this seems dysfunctional. You "need" a scouting role.... for what, please? If I know where the enemy might or might not appear, I don´t need to scout.

Scouting in other games (WOT, for example) is needed so other roles can do their work, they also counter other roles. Scouts complement your teams artillery, while countering the enemies arty and hunters. Hunters complement the mediums, while they counter the heavies. Heavies complement the whole team while countering the mediums.

In fantasy rpgs, a scout/thief counters enemy casters (long range support), healers/buffers, finds traps (in PVE-Settings) and has "tool" functionality like lockpick, tracking, etc.

In MWO, these mechanics don´t apply. The only thing a scout can do is capstealing/capracing and limited targeting for artillery. But since MWO´s artillery becomes less effective with range, the ability to mark a target outside of engagement range is pointless.

So, please, again: Explain to me how roles in MWO would/should work without tonnage/ressource limitation.

That is a complicated mess to solve, but it's not impossible by any means.

• For starters, the reward system needs to have increased payout for actions other than destroying/damaging enemy mechs (i.e. spotting, capturing, etc. etc.).
  
• Heavy and assault mechs could probably use some manueverability reductions (excluding fast ones like Dragons and Quickdraws) so that they can be more feasibly outmaneuvered (right now they can easily keep up with a smaller mech in their face in most circumstances); this makes them more reliant on highly maneuverable mechs such as mediums to defend them from flankers. Right now they can handle just about any situation, which kind of kills the point in taking other mechs.
  
• Mediums and perhaps lights could possibly use some agility buffs to help make their maneuverability advantage over larger mechs be more significant.
  
• Mediums in particular should probably have more module slots to increase their versatility, and access to the widest variety of modules. After all, their whole canon role is meant to be an all-rounder and highly adaptable sort of class.
  
• The XP tree and module systems would be reworked so that there are distinctive "paths" to follow instead of just generic all-around buffs. I.e. scout, fire support, assault, command, etc. etc. would be branches of the XP tree that mechs could specialize towards.
  
• Modules need to be role-based, so no Sensor Range booster on a mech designed for frontal attacks for instance.
  
• Rescale medium mechs so that they are no longer ginormous; this makes them harder to hit and therefore more durable than they are now.
  
• Improve the effectiveness of "support" weapons such as LRMs and Narc to encourage their use (and, in the case of LRMs, mechs that spot for LRM boats would be more useful as a result).
  
• Reduce capture times so that fast-responders are more necessary to defend against cappers.
  
• Increased map sizes so that slow mechs can sometimes be a liability.
  
• The addition of more powerful scouting tools such as being able to lock multiple targets simultaneously, give visual cues to teammates when you spot something (so that they are more likely to act on that information), integrated VOIP (people are more likely to respond to information if they hear it than if you just type it out), and many others.
  
• Rework ECM and BAP to be true information warfare systems instead of on/off switches for lock-on missiles.
  
• Buff low-tonnage, high-damage weapons such as SRMs to help mediums and lights pack a greater punch (fatties can use them too, but they have more tonnage to spend and thus it doesn't benefit them as greatly).

Those are the ideas that I can think of off the top of my head, but there are of course many other steps that could be taken to make mechs under 65 tons much more desirable to play.

Edited by FupDup, 10 December 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Sandpit]

Just search my posts to get any and all of my detailed thoughts on this from one of the other numerous threads already on this subject

Short answer: Tonnage limits = good

[Snitchkilla]

tonnage limits for the win. mediums everywhere!!!!!

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 10 December 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Short answer: Tonnage limits = good

The problem with tonnage limits is

1. There is a 'go to' mech in each weight class that will be used and a 'trash' mech that will not (Awesome or Victor?)
2. weight limits will favor the extremes (light and assault) and not the middle (medium mechs).

Granted, this is more my opinion and prediction since we don't know what the limits will be.

[FupDup]

Davers, on 10 December 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

The problem with tonnage limits is

1. There is a 'go to' mech in each weight class that will be used and a 'trash' mech that will not (Awesome or Victor?)
2. weight limits will favor the extremes (light and assault) and not the middle (medium mechs).

Granted, this is more my opinion and prediction since we don't know what the limits will be.

Not to mention, certain mechs already are superior to mechs of greater weight. For instance, the Victor is tied for best assault with the Highlander, the Jenner outclasses the Cicada any day, Shadow Hawk > Dragon and Quickdraw, etc.

[Sidekick]

While I admire your list FubDub, you have to accept the following:

- there won´t be a rescaling of mechs. It has been stated many times and the design team of MWO seems to stick to its guns.
- none of your listed feats lets you win a game.

Don´t you get it? The best way to win is to slay the enemy without falling, a heavy lance/steiner scout lance will outclass any mixed lance all the time, because while heavy, they are not limited to any role. they can perform well against long and short range while packing 2 times the hitpoints and 3 times the armament of a mixed lance.