29 replies to this topic

[BlackIronTarkus]

Hello community, I haven't posted for some time a suggestion or a concern about gameplay because I finally got to believe that it didn't matter how hard we rang the bell the developers never(very VERY rarely) used our input. But the recent post about the NARC update gave me just enough hope to make a new thread, be it good or bad. With some luck Paul have awaken from his lumber and finally realize that weapons which are never used require some attention. Lets hope he keep that attitude and give items such as the COMMAND CONSOLE some much needed love.

That being said, when I was reading about the ELO adjustment I have got think about players and tonnage and it lead me directly to battle value. Im not the first to propose it, and Im certainly not the last but I feel the need to talk about it again and at the same time, hopefully, bring some attention to it.

Battle values would indirectly solve many problems currently in the game that tonnage limit cannot stop.

OP weapons and flavor of the month(months?) chassis would have an higher battle value in a match than less effective equipment. Jump jets capable mech would also have a higher battle value than another variant which cannot jump and of course a bigger mech would have more battle value than a smaller mech.

It would effectively serve the same purpose as tonnage limit, but with more precision. Not only that but players themselves could have battle value instead of the clunky ELOs. A player with a higher kill to death ratio, or a player that complete more objective would gain battle value just as he gain elo and lose it.

If you combine all that together, you get matches that are a lot more fair and balanced. Not only from a tonnage point of view but also from a player skill perspective.

The icing on the cake would be if the battle value was dynamic. Indeed, if a weapon rise to the top of the kill chain, it is effectively more widely used and net more kill to the user then it gain battle value. The base of that dynamic battle value would be the medium laser, with a fixed battle value. I don't know at what rate battle value should increase or decrease so it doesn't alienate players, but I believe something like once every month would greatly improve the currently extremely stale and boring game play.

Indeed, you would see a lot more variety in a match from all perspectives and the battle field wouldnt be filled with the same stuff over and over.

What do you think?

[Asmudius Heng]

I remember the devs saying recently maybe on twitter? That they do like the idea of battlevalue in some way but no more information was given.

I hope this is given more thought and not just left by the wayside like other things they have 'been thinking about' like hardpoint limitations and many other things.

[Phantomime]

Nice to see im not the only one that started a thread on this.

even if it was just TONNAGE x ELO = NEW BATTLE VALUE that the MM uses to match teams, that would be enough, and a lot less work than pounding out new values for each item.

[ReXspec]

This is the system they already have in place... and it's not working. There are far more lob-sided matches then there should be.

ACTUAL Battle Value is based on tactical viability of 'mechs, equipment, and weapons.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

Current Battle Value is simply based on Weight Class and ELO. If they based Battle Value on the TT system, there would be a lot less lob-sided matches.

[Mechteric]

Its not that simple, I'm sure you'd need some square roots, multipliers, heck maybe a plank's constant or two to get it working with tonnage.


There's too many other factors. Team tonnage limits are their best option to start, then maybe the BV can come along later.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 27 January 2014 - 06:39 PM.

[BlackIronTarkus]

CapperDeluxe, on 27 January 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

Its not that simple, I'm sure you'd need some square roots, multipliers, heck maybe a plank's constant or two to get it working with tonnage.


There's too many other factors. Team tonnage limits are their best option to start, then maybe the BV can come along later.

Definitely, but I'm really not a number guy, I a lot more linked to my instinct and what the informed community think about some problems. So yeah, just throwing out the concept out there once again like many others did. A one pager kind of thing.

[Roland]

The reason you can't just use tonnage as a representation of a mech is because then certain mechs like the awesome will never be used.

[Khobai]

tonnage x ELO doesnt work.

because if you have two players of equal skill, and one is running a troll boar's head with 6 flamers, and the other is running a meta highlander with ac5s/ppcs, the boar's head would have the higher battle value.

The only way to do battle value properly is to assign a value to every item in the game.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

The only way to do battle value properly is to assign a value to every item in the game.

Well I surely hope this does not happen. Just imagine all the balancing arguments that would create. They would be endless.

I think this is one of those times in which the KISS principle might be relevant.

Edited by Mystere, 27 January 2014 - 07:41 PM.

[ShinVector]

Think the controversial tonnage limits will do a better job on balance.
It gonna suck at first when pre-made groups are forced to a certain weight limit.
The match makers should have an easier timing matching the groups with similar ELO levels.

But I guess PGI just like everyone to running in $30 assaults mechs.

Then again.. No CW... will wait out..

Edited by ShinVector, 27 January 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Well I surely hope this does not happen. Just imagine all the balancing arguments that would create. They would be endless.

Depends how it was implemented. A dynamic battle value system could work, where the value of mechs/weapons changes depending on how many games are won using those mechs/weapons. So the more successful a mech/weapon is the higher its battlevalue becomes during matchmaking. It would be very hard to abuse a system like that.

Edited by Khobai, 27 January 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Roland, on 27 January 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

The reason you can't just use tonnage as a representation of a mech is because then certain mechs like the awesome will never be used.

But it may at least curb the Steiner scout lances.

However diversity needs a hell of a lot more than tonnage restrictions, it needs role warfare, better weapons balance, improving underperforming chassis, much better info warfare system etc etc etc.

God it's exhausting looking at all of the things that need to be fixed to make the game better and more viable when you know how to break it ....

[Roland]

I'll just point out again that you could institute a dynamic battlevalue system which was based entirely upon usage stats that the servers already record.

Such a system would automatically adjust and balance itself, and result in matches which were more balanced than any artifically defined BV system could ever achieve, and would end up giving us a game which constantly changed and evolved over time as players were constantly forced to find new, novel builds (or even old ones which had become too costly at one time in the past).

[Nick Makiaveli]

ShinVector, on 27 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Think the controversial tonnage limits will do a better job on balance.
It gonna suck at first when pre-made groups are forced to a certain weight limit.
The match makers should have an easier timing matching the groups with similar ELO levels.

But I guess PGI just like everyone to running in $30 assaults mechs.

Then again.. No CW... will wait out..

Did you start this post, walk away, change your mind and then come back and finish it?

If PGI was trying to get everyone to buy Assaults, then why tonnage limits that will prevent 12 Assaults per team?

[Mystere]

Roland, on 27 January 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

I'll just point out again that you could institute a dynamic battlevalue system which was based entirely upon usage stats that the servers already record.

Such a system would automatically adjust and balance itself, and result in matches which were more balanced than any artifically defined BV system could ever achieve, and would end up giving us a game which constantly changed and evolved over time as players were constantly forced to find new, novel builds (or even old ones which had become too costly at one time in the past).

Although that is not such a bad idea ( ), I have my doubts it would fly with many in the player base. If people here can't comprehend something like "Ghost Heat" (regardless of whether it was a good or bad idea), I doubt they will comprehend something more complex like a dynamic system.

And unless the system was fully transparent, there are those who will just doubt it's veracity, just like what we have now with Elo.

[Roland]

Mystere, on 27 January 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

Although that is not such a bad idea ( ), I have my doubts it would fly with many in the player base. If people here can't comprehend something like "Ghost Heat" (regardless of whether it was a good or bad idea), I doubt they will comprehend something more complex like a dynamic system.

And unless the system was fully transparent, there are those who will just doubt it's veracity, just like what we have now with Elo.

The costs would be clearly displayed to users... there would be no reason NOT to.

Indeed, you WANT to display the costs, because that's what enables users to be intelligent consumers, and makes the market work.

A player would then be able to construct some specific build which, due to past usage stats, was quite cheap.. but still effective. This would give him a temporary advantage, as he would be getting "more bang for his buck" in terms of battle value.

As those builds were used and propagated through the player base, then the BV would increase. This would then push players to develop other builds... Eventually, that build would be cheap again, and someone might rediscover it.

It would improve this game in a multitude of ways. It'd add a whole new level of depth to mechbuilding, while creating a constantly shifting metagame.

And honestly, it wouldn't even be that hard to implement.

The upcoming tonnage limits could be shifted to a system like this without too much additional trouble. You could shift it fairly easily to a straight up comparison of specific variants... with a bit more work, you could shift it to a full equipment analysis where a mech's value was derived from its equipment loadout, which would effectively automatically incorporate variant differences (since they are effectively differentiated by which ones can carry the best loadout).

It really could work, and it'd not only result in much more balanced matches, but would actually result in usage of the mechs which are currently relegated to the trash tier.

[Asmudius Heng]

100% agree with roland.

If the awesome was worth 'effectively' 70 tons or less because it was being used so little and the highlander was worth 100 tons, you might see people reconsidering the mechs that have the most advantageous set ups.

If you were an ace commando pilot say and your mech could be brought for the effective tonnage cost of 15 tons because no one else played it you could save your team lots of tons for other mechs and if you do well you are bringing a lot more to the table than the stated 15 tons.

If PGI changes something balance wise and people drop using a high end meta mech then the less usage will be reflected very quickly and it will become cheaper to field.

This is the best way to have a manageable BV system that can change as the game evolves IMO

And people like me that see a {Scrap} mech as a challenge (while still recognizing it as a bad mech) would have a field day and new challenges!

Mechs with JJs and ECM will then cost more most likely reflecting how powerful that equipment is also

[Roland]

The system would autobalance... Not only would the results be better than anything manual balancing could accomplish, but it would be WAY LESS WORK on PGI's part.

It'll never happen though.

[OznerpaG]

i threw a sort of similar suggestion in a few months ago saying that each player's mech weight should be modified by his match score average - someone with a match score average of 16 in a 50t hunch might only be worth 50t+16%= 58t, while someone with a match score average of 90 in a hunch might be worth 50t+90%=95t. also if a group wanted to enter a game they should get an extra 10ish% per mech added to their weight to make up for the fact they are likely more organized than single players joining

i do like the idea of getting a "tonnage discount" if you use a less popular mech - wouldn't affect my personal mech choices, but it'd be nice to see a greater variety of mechs out there

[ShinVector]

Nick Makiaveli, on 27 January 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Did you start this post, walk away, change your mind and then come back and finish it?

If PGI was trying to get everyone to buy Assaults, then why tonnage limits that will prevent 12 Assaults per team?

Nope typo fixes.

Anyway it is called sarcasm dude. Tonnage limits could have been done now it they wanted too but they never did.
They could have tested in the test server for all I care. At least experiment on how it helps on the ELO MM balance...

One of the reasons ELO MM is messed up also because pre-made groups could bring any damn thing they wanted..
The easiest way is to cheese with assaults mechs which happen to be the most expensive on PGI's price scale.
Maybe marketing would think that less assaults means less money so, NO the tonnage limit idea ?

However I believe the current ELO MM does work if everyone were to SOLO PUG. Saw it work before in the SOLO tournies.

Edited by ShinVector, 27 January 2014 - 10:06 PM.