69 replies to this topic

[BlackIronTarkus]

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?

[Iacov]

because i guess you can't simply translate BV to MWO

and actually 3/3/3/3 is pretty close to what i find reasonable

and in reality, not everybody plays this game cheezy...some actually choose chassis by looks or feel
some perceive fun not only defined by efficiency
personally, i think it is very unlikely that there will only be "the lions of their weight class" in the new matches

otherwise i couldn't explain all those locust and quickdraws - that actually have their worth

[Nik Van Rhijn]

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.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

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.

No one who is worth their salt or want this game to have longevity is looking for a "quick fix"

BV is a longterm solution to a myriad of shit problems PGI has stumbled into BECAUSE THEY KEEP DOING "QUICK FIXES"

This game needs solutions, not placeholders

[FupDup]

The real solution to imbalances is to fix those imbalances. If a weapon sucks, don't give it a low BV. What you should do is MAKE IT STOP SUCKING.

In the case of weight classes, the way you fix those is with Role Warfare. Every class should have an actually useful role on the battlefield, instead of bigger = better. It's totally fine if the bigger mechs win in a duel, but those smaller mechs (mediums, lights) just need to have stuff to do that their bigger brethren can't perform so well. We need bigger maps so mobility matters more. We need spread-out objectives for the same reason. We need a radar/sensor rework so that scouting is more important. And there are even more things we could do to accomplish this.

Edited by FupDup, 02 March 2014 - 09:43 AM.

[Varent]

because its not battletech?

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Varent, on 02 March 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

because its not battletech?

To an extent...

[Mawai]

Varent, on 02 March 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

because its not battletech?

It doesn't need to be battletech to realize that trying to balance a match by assigning a Combat Value, Point Value, or whatever you want to call it to each mech would provide a potentially easier way to balance a match.

Ideally .. (and I mean ideally)

A mech could have a combat value derived from a combination of
- tonnage
- weapons
- engine
- armor
- modules
- jump jets
- other equipment

which would give the Base Mech Combat Value. This would then be modified by pilot factors
- mech efficiencies
- ELO
- total character earned experience

and then further modified by a group factor
- group size modifier

This process give ONE value for each mech in the queue which could then be used to form a match.

Advantages:
- the mix of mechs in the match should be more or less balanced based on all these factors combined
- the matches do not get stale with the same mixture of mechs ... personally, I think I will find matches where every team, all the time has 3 light, 3 medium, 3 heavy and 3 assault pretty boring.
- many of the weight classes only have one choice .. so if the matchmaker ends up exactly matching tonnage you will know that if you have an atlas ... so does the other team ... also boring.
- It acknowledges the fact that a Jenner piloted by an expert can be much more effective than an Atlas piloted by someone in their first match.
- it makes the matchmaker code much easier since there is only one quantity being used to form the match. It isn't combining ELO, mech class and trying to satisfy multiple constraints ... it only has to worry about the Effective Combat value

Finally, this system has the issue that you could mix great players with poor ones ... to avoid this the incoming queue could always be tiered as they plan in the new launch module so that each ELO group will be playing with folks in the same range.

[3rdworld]

It doesn't matter to me much. But doesn't it seem fairly ironic that you are requesting a BV system because PGI cannot balance MWO, and a BV system itself would require PGI....to balance it?

Unless you are claiming that a BV system would be magnitudes easier for them to balance, I don't see how it would correct anything with PGI being the common denominator.

Edited by 3rdworld, 02 March 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Is There A Reason Why Pgi Don't Want To Use Battlevalues?

Because it requires work. And they only have like 6 people working on the actual game and diverting their resources away from CW isnt something they want to do. Simple as that.

Quote

because its not battletech?

So? weapon stats and armor stats are derived from battletech. So its not a stretch to have BV derived from battletech either.

Quote

and a BV system itself would require PGI....to balance it?

Not necessarily. A dynamic BV system could increase/decrease the value of mechs/weapons automatically based on how many games are won using them. It would automatically curb meta shifts, because the moment everyone started using a weapon and winning with it, its BV would increase. We'd still have cheese PPC/AC5 builds but they would be costing their team a lot of BV at least.

Edited by Khobai, 02 March 2014 - 10:42 AM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 02 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Because it requires work. And they only have like 6 people working on the actual game and diverting their resources away from CW isnt something they want to do. Simple as that.



Not necessarily. A dynamic BV system could increase/decrease the value of mechs/weapons automatically based on how many games are won using them. It would automatically curb meta shifts, because the moment everyone started using a weapon and winning with it, its BV would increase.

You would just trade one meta for another. But that said it might not be a bad thing. Though they would need someone to code it properly. Im loath to see how they would implement this themselves.

[Khobai]

Quote

You would just trade one meta for another.

Which is how metagaming is SUPPOSED to work. The dominant meta is supposed to get replaced by a counter meta.

[Roland]

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/

[Blaike]

3/3/3/3 is ok for now, But if they worked out the b/v for each mech then counted it up at the end and give extra c bills to the team with the lower value whoever won might be accepable

[ReXspec]

To answer the OP:

Yes.

Translation: There really is no good answer. We could give a myriad of theories as to why P.G.I. hasn't implemented something like BV, but all the implications to each respective theory are not good (to say the least).

What remains a definite fact is that no long-term solution to match-making such as battle value has been implemented, which is baffling.

[Ranek Blackstone]

BV assumes 2 things:

First, all dice rolls are equal, and second is that those dice control the world.

It's a system used to balance a game run on RNG (and badly at that) that doesn't really carry over to a real time skill based system. You can use it as a general guide line, to be sure, since high BV weapons are considered "better" then low BV weapons, but the "hows" of them being better is something else entirely

[Roland]

Ranek Blackstone, on 02 March 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

BV assumes 2 things:

First, all dice rolls are equal, and second is that those dice control the world.

It's a system used to balance a game run on RNG (and badly at that) that doesn't really carry over to a real time skill based system. You can use it as a general guide line, to be sure, since high BV weapons are considered "better" then low BV weapons, but the "hows" of them being better is something else entirely

The system I proposed would most certainly work in a game that has no dependence on randomness, since it would derive value directly from actual use in game.

And really, the notion of BV doesn't actually have anything to do with randomness.

[Blood Officer 023]

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?

Is an LBX-10 higher in BV in BT than an AC/10?

Should it be here?

That should answer your question OP.

PGI would need to not only set arbitrary values for BV based on the actual game (as opposed to the BV's from BT tabletop), it would need to actually balance the game.

Far easier for them to offer simplistic solutions to try and beat the situation into submission, than to put in a ton of work on something like a BV balancing option (which would in no way be simple to implement, no matter what the lore-hounds cry out....tabletop values are not commensurate with a real time shooter with pin point convergence and all of the other wrinkles PGI has introduced into this game). Given their priorities, I don't see this as suprising.

If the various items they are hard pressed to finish make it to fruition, something like this might....might be worth considering in the future, but right now they have other fish to fry to keep this game alive, namely community warfare.

[Willard Phule]

Iacov, on 02 March 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

because i guess you can't simply translate BV to MWO

and actually 3/3/3/3 is pretty close to what i find reasonable

and in reality, not everybody plays this game cheezy...some actually choose chassis by looks or feel
some perceive fun not only defined by efficiency
personally, i think it is very unlikely that there will only be "the lions of their weight class" in the new matches

otherwise i couldn't explain all those locust and quickdraws - that actually have their worth

Actually, having used the BV system in Battletech for a number of years, I can tell you that not only could it be implemented...it would be far simpler than any other half-baked idea they're working on right now.

In simplest terms: There are 2 factors to consider here....meat and machine.

Meat is easy. Keep the Elo system they have in place to track whatever it is they think they're tracking.

Machine is somewhat easy. There is a system already in place to generate a "base" value for all the hardware. Sure, there are things that are a little "off" from what tabletop uses....but no so much that it's completely undoable. If you question the value of a weapon system, like the LB10-X, then take a look at how much damage it does....and find something that does comparable damage...and base the value from there.

Modules, Efficiencies, etc...would all need to have a value assigned to them. But, again, it's not complicated. You look at the overall effect of the efficiency or module and assign it a value.

You would only ever see the "machine" value...because you don't know your Elo. But, when you jump into a game, they add the meat and the machine to come up with a number to use in matches.

[Varent]

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 like it but it also needs to take into account how those weapons interact with the mech weight, and lack or addition to jump jets. Also will need to play out with how they interact with the other weapons as well. For example a mech with jump jets and ppc/ac is far far superior to a mech without jump jets and the same load. In addition to that a mech with just one ppc and then all srm would have a wonky vaue as well since It wouldn't necessarily bring all those weapons to bear equally. That said in addition having them code this properly would be key.