7 replies to this topic

[Clint Steel]

Just posted an idea for weight/tonnage restrictions, but that doesn't mean I'm super happy with the idea still.

Another option could be cost restrictions.

The team would have an overall amount of money to spend, say $150,000,000 (edited). The total cost of a mech would include all things equiped, including engine, ecm, weapons, maybe even modules.

This would be a realistic way an army might be put to field. Also isn't it how some table top games let you choose your units?

I think weight restrictions over simplifies how effective certain mechs can be, like a good Raven pilot with ECM, verse a Dragon. The Raven is so much lighter, but if you figure in how much ECM costs and the XL engine its likely running, the costs are very close together. Which is good since I rarely see a Dragon do as much as a Raven.

This also would help balance things like the 3L vs the 4x Raven, or other variant discrepancies.

I think its a much better idea to work with, than just tonnage. There would be many issues to work with as PUG teams wouldn't know what others are bringing, but I think it would be worth the work to make a system balance this way rather than arbitrary tonnage.

Edited by Clint Steel, 18 January 2014 - 06:08 PM.

[FupDup]

The LB 10-X is the most expensive weapon in the game...lol.

Oh, and your arbitrary money limit is waaaay too low. Keep in mind that a single Medium Laser costs $80,000.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 18 January 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

The LB 10-X is the most expensive weapon in the game...lol.

Oh, and your arbitrary money limit is waaaay too low. Keep in mind that a single Medium Laser costs $80,000.

LBX is the new meta? Someday... if they decide to up the damage per pellet.

Otherwise... LOL.

[Clint Steel]

if they chose to do something like, this they could rebalance pricing accordingly.

Why is an LBX so expensive?

[Jaeger Gonzo]

If you will be able to change ammo as you should, then expense will be far deserved.

In TT we do it by BV.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 18 January 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Clint Steel]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 18 January 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

If you will be able to change ammo as you should, then expense will be far deserved.

In TT we do it by BV.

You mean you can use different ammo for the LBX?

What is BV

[Daggett]

Cbill-cost and tonnage are both only very rough estimations on a mechs real power.
Both can be exploited quite easily.

BV is probably the best way to go if the Devs want to establish the closest possible team balancing.

Clint Steel, on 19 January 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

What is BV

BV is an abbreviation for 'Battle Value'.
Each component (base chassis, weapons, heat sinks, ammo, even pilot skills and modules) get a value determining how much this piece of equipment can influence the battle.

For instance, a medium Laser would get a higher BV than his small counterpart because of it's higher damage and range.
By summing up the BV of all parts of your Mech you get an estimation of it's power.

But the hard thing is to determine the true value of each component. As you can see in the Forums, each player has a different opinion on the strength of an equipment. And a component's strength can even change when combined with other components.

For example, small lasers do horribly suck on a 40kph assault but are great on a 150kph light.
So it's a very hard (or even impossible) task to estimate the true BV of a system.

But even with a 'good-as-possible'-estimation the BV system would beat tonnage and cost-based power-balancing.

EDIT:
As you guys read my comparison between the medium and small laser you probably thought:
"Wait, i thought the goal is to balance all weapons? Does he just say that the medium laser is way more powerful than his small counterpart?"

Yep, i state that the weapons can never be balanced perfectly.
And they never were in the original TT. That's why they implemented BV.

PGI originally tried to adapt the TT values but ignored the balancing which BV provided.

That's a reason why they are constantly changing these values.
(Another one of cause is the huge difference between turn-based TT and real-action FPS.)

BV is the glue that keeps the inherent power differences of all systems in check by normalizing them in matchmaking.

The problem in MWO however is that each player only controls a single Mech while in the TT you were able to control let's say 3 weak mechs against 1-2 more powerful ones.

I guess the devs are taking the current 'balance all systems to the same level'-route because of this.
They think that players want to always be on even ground with others, which is most probably true.
They try to reduce the 'f**k, this mech in front of me is much stronger' moments.

I think what they don't realized with this strategy is that they now have a problem of balancing the matchmaking which probably has a higher influence on those 'f**k'-moments than a BV system would have.

And this strategy will probably negatively affect the clans by nerfing them into oblivion.

I don't know for sure, but maybe a BV-based balancing would have been better in the long-run...
At least with clans i would love non-symmetrical 4vs12 battles...

Edited by Daggett, 19 January 2014 - 06:02 AM.

[Clint Steel]

Ah thanks, so weapons and such would have another value, other than cost. I like that idea. Could even scale in some ways that a pure cost option wouldn't be able to.

I guess lots of people do probably want their mechs to be on the same competitive level, since they are playing just one. Though they have mentioned having a drop ship with 3 other mechs to play as respawns, then it could be more acceptable to play as an under powered mech.

Personally I'm not against playing a weaker mech if it means the rest of my team has some advantage, like extra tonnage or BV.