69 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

verybad, on 03 March 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Beacause battle values are considered innacurate even by the TT makers.Catalyst. They were going to remake them themselves...If they don't work well for the TT game, then how are they going to work for the video game?

...and we have yet another person who doesn't understand what is being discussed, yet comments on it. Makes me wonder if posting "we ain't talking about tabletop system" in bold 72 pt font would help.

[Varent]

Roland, on 03 March 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

Turns out, it really doesn't need to account for what you actually put on the mech. Simply by looking at the usage of a given chassis (Note, each VARIANT is considered separately. This is key.), you can derive a value which will effectively achieve the desired goals of increasing mech variety... and since one of the primary differentiators of variants is the hardpoints, this ends up achieving a fairly good analog for a more complex system which accounted for individual weapons.

The weapons themselves end up being inherently accounted for by the system because weapons balance ends up being one of the driving forces in mech selection.... The reason why a certain variant is used, is because it is capable of carrying optimal weapons loadouts. The D-DC, for instance, gets more usage than other atlases... mainly because it carries ECM. The same goes for any of the mechs carrying ECM. The ECM variant inevitably gets used more than the alternatives. Thus, there's really no need to worry about the weapons' values themselves, as it all ends up coming out in the wash.

The only thing that really ends up being missed is that you don't really get any incentive to bring the best chassis and load it up with garbage weapons.. but that's really not important anyway.

Likewise, this isn't account for player skill at all. A battlevalue system isn't a replacement for a matchmaker. Instead, a battlevalue system provides a measurement of the mech's value itself, which can then be INCLUDED within a larger matchmaking system.

Although, that being said, the system I'm laying out actually DOES help provide some balancing of teams of various sizes, by providing bonuses to smaller teams and solo pilots, and imposing stricter BV limits on larger teams.

But again, a BV system isn't a replacement for a matchmaker. It's just one metric which can be used in matchmaking.

The problem comes... when people aren't using the mech towards the meta. In other words, if you are using a 733c with 2 machine gun, some srm and pulse lasers..... and you are matched in a brachet just because of the chasis... etc...

[Asmudius Heng]

Roland, on 02 March 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Long ago I presented an idea for a dynamic market based battle value system which could be implemented quickly and easily, and would create a constantly changing meta game.

http://mwomercs.com/...e-value-system/

I support this 100% i wish PGI would think about it.

[Asmudius Heng]

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

The problem comes... when people aren't using the mech towards the meta. In other words, if you are using a 733c with 2 machine gun, some srm and pulse lasers..... and you are matched in a brachet just because of the chasis... etc...

I think that would be less of an issue than trying to balance every bit of equipment which is nightmarish in it's scope.

If someoen wants to bring a crap build then they will need to still pay a premium ... OR they might say hmmm ... maybe i will take that Awesome, its SUPER cheap to take into battle and frees up BV for someone else to take some ungodly meta build - but i know how to make that Awesome WORK.

Incentives to take lower teir mechs while disincentives to take the full top meta - its elegant, not a punishment, i bet many top tier players would love the challenge to take a lesser mech and make it work and know they are not heavily disadvantaging thier team ... it would also mean people try new things and new ways to counter the meta which changes how the game is played. BV will ebb and flow more often

[Joseph Mallan]

BlackIronTarkus, on 02 March 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

Seriously, it seems they try every other mechanics other than battlevalue. Why? The currently proposed mechanic of 3/3/3/3 will just end up as 3 jenners/3 shadowhawks/3 CTF-3D/2 highlander and 1 atlas DDC. Even tonnage limit is a better mechanic, but as they explained in their post it involve some problems.

So, the obvious solution is battlevalue? Weapons, battlemech and players with a value, balanced into a match.

So why?

Because BV was a broken pile of manipulation. I was a FanPro Commando an there were/are ways to game BV seriously. BV would be terribad in MWO with all the number crunchers we have!

[IceSerpent]

Asmudius Heng, on 04 March 2014 - 03:08 AM, said:

If someoen wants to bring a crap build then they will need to still pay a premium ... OR they might say hmmm ... maybe i will take that Awesome, its SUPER cheap to take into battle and frees up BV for someone else to take some ungodly meta build - but i know how to make that Awesome WORK.

There is a bit of a problem due to the fact that newer players are still in the middle of Elo range. You can have a vet with a fully upgraded/unlocked meta build who is an average player and has Elo 1300 (his real Elo, the guy is not very good) and a rookie who has the same Elo due to him being a rookie with the same mech that has yet to be fully upgraded/unlocked. Those two guys would end up in the same match, which would make the life of that new player much more difficult than it should be.

[Tombstoner]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 March 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Probably because it requires a considerable rework from the TT values (just look at the LBX) plus they would need to add in modules, consumables, skill tree etc. Long term it would be ideal but I can't see it being a quick fix.

A lot of work for dubious value and utility.

[MustrumRidcully]

If PGI was able to guesstimate useful battle values for mechs or weapons, wouldn't they also neccessarily have the ability to identify what items are overpowered, underpowered or "correctly" powered, and not just by a general "It's broken" but to a level of "it's x points better/worse"?
Do you think PGI has this ability?

If you think PGI has this ability, I also wonder - why not just adjust the stats of items or mechs to ensure that they aren't OP or UP in the first place?


I could think of a scenario, perhaps: If an item cannot be seen in isolation due to synergy effects (heat thresholds, weapon convergence etc.), then maybe they could only give points based on seeing the whole build. But that still predicates that they are able to express "Poptart Highlanders with Dual PPC and Dual AC/5 are 17 % better than Atlai with ECM, AC/20, 2MLs and 3 SRM6s". I don't think they can do that.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 March 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[Purlana]

Having different BVs means they have to admit that X, Y, and Z are OP or UP.

At that point, wouldn't they have to make balance changes anyway...?

[Varent]

Asmudius Heng, on 04 March 2014 - 03:08 AM, said:

I think that would be less of an issue than trying to balance every bit of equipment which is nightmarish in it's scope.

If someoen wants to bring a crap build then they will need to still pay a premium ... OR they might say hmmm ... maybe i will take that Awesome, its SUPER cheap to take into battle and frees up BV for someone else to take some ungodly meta build - but i know how to make that Awesome WORK.

Incentives to take lower teir mechs while disincentives to take the full top meta - its elegant, not a punishment, i bet many top tier players would love the challenge to take a lesser mech and make it work and know they are not heavily disadvantaging thier team ... it would also mean people try new things and new ways to counter the meta which changes how the game is played. BV will ebb and flow more often

Those builds aren't necessarily crap. They are using a mech in a way that fits there style. I know a lot of players that ike lasers and srm. It all depends onwhat you want to use a mech for. Thus if you don't take that into account your just trading one broken system for another broken system