51 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

So, I disagree with you and your rebuttle is that the burden of proof is on me? Brilliant.

That wasn't a rebuttal, I simply couldn't figure out what you were referring to when you said that system can be gamed and asked for an example.

Quote

Look, BV was a great thing in the TT game when everything fired at the same recycle rate.

What does recycle rate have to do with viability of BV systems? Not to mention that Solaris rules allow for different recycle rates, yet BV still applies (just an off-top-of-my-head example).

Quote

You can't simply import BV into this game when things aren't built on the same foundation.

Yeah, which is exactly why we don't suggest an import of anything...please tell me that you actually read what is being proposed prior to commenting?

Quote

The Md Laser has a value of X and the PPC has a value of Y. Both have a recycle rate of 4s without efficiencies. But, put in efficiencies and their recycle rates differ which means that the BV foundation breaks. The SRM2 fires faster than the SRM6 so, again, the foundation breaks.

*sigh* Apparently, you didn't even look at what we're talking about. Arguing about something without even knowing what that something is...isn't very productive, don't you think?
On a side note, what efficiencies are you talking about? I don't recall anything specific to PPC or ML (or any other weapon for that matter).

[IceSerpent]

Almond Brown, on 03 March 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Break out your spreadsheet, in its entirety, and we will gladly accommodate your request. Otherwise, you ask that we try and game a "non-existent system". wtf?

When you say "this system can be gamed", it stands to reason that you see some sort of a design flaw that you can abuse in order to gain an advantage. I.e. I can claim that tonnage matching can (and will) be gamed because mechs of the same tonnage can have vastly different performance capabilities. Exact numbers make no difference in this regard.

[Trauglodyte]

I read everything. I may simply not agree, or completely see, what you're talking about.

According to Sarna.net, the Medium Laser has a battle value of 46. The PPC has a battle value of 176. Looking at TT and the fact that they have a 10s turn, the weapons mentioned above would have a BV of 4.6 and 17.6/s. Taking MWO into account, those BVs would change to 18.4 (Md Laser) and 70.4 (PPC) at a base. Taking into account Fast Fire, the BVs would change to 16.3 (Md Laser) and 59.8 (PPC). This is simply a mathematical equalization process based on recycle times. The problem, in my eyes, is that I don't know upon what FASA's math was based. Is it damage? Range? Heat? We have a lot of the same stats in MWO but some aren't the same. The Lrg Laser was 8/8 in TT bu tis 9/7 in MWO. How does that change the BV? How does our heat efficiencies impact BV?

Like I said, BV was used in a vaccum in TT where everything was stable. None of it was balanced but it was still stable. But, we don't have stability in this game so how you translate it to this environment?

Maybe what I'm saying is that it is less about me disagreeing and more about someone showing me that i can be done properly.

[Wintersdark]

IceSerpent, on 03 March 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Changing numbers is easier than coding a UI, it's easier than creating a new mech or new map, it's easier than designing and coding CW, it's easier than creating lobbies. If you look at the big picture of software development, it's practically the easiest task possible. Naturally, it's more difficult than scratching one's behind, but at some point developers have to actually develop the product.

Easier, but very time consuming. Actually changing the numbers is easy. Collecting data, analyzing results, making good changes, and repeating - the whole iterative process - is very time consuming. It would require a lot of designer time (note - that is, game designer in particular, not software engineer, etc). There are few designers, and those are pretty much all working on the Community Warfare design, with off-hand peeks at weapon balance.

We frequently call in electrical engineers at my work to fix maintenance issues our own maintenance staff can't handle for whatever reason. They typically get paid roughly $500/hr, with a minimum callin time. Sometimes, they'll come in, wiggle a wire, and that'll fix the problem. The company didn't pay them $500/hr to wiggle the wire, they paid them $500/hr to know which wire to wiggle.

Determining these numbers is like that. It's easy to randomly pick numbers, it's easy to change numbers. It's a lot harder to make the right changes, because it's a very complex interlocking machine. Small changes in one place can have significant impact elsewhere.

Game design looks easy, but it's really not.

Quote

It's up to PGI to decide. I would be willing to take a shot at it if I had a reasonable expectation of PGI being interested in me doing so. I know how to use a spreadsheet, so it's not an enormously complicated task for me. I am also fairly certain that quite a few other folks on these forums can do it too. That being said, why bother when we both know that it would be just an intellectual exercise?

It would just be an intellectual excersize. But see, that's my whole point.

You may as well ask for fully integrated combined arms in the game. It simply can't happen - not because it's a bad idea, but because it's one with a high cost to complete well. And it's one with a high cost to implement and only a moderate gain: You'd have matches with (assuming the BV numbers were very good) slightly better balance. Of course, weapon balance would be worse (time taking away from weapon balance to implement it) and community warfare would be further delayed. Worthwhile? I think not.

Battle Value is a great idea that can't happen here.

[Wintersdark]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

I read everything. I may simply not agree, or completely see, what you're talking about.

According to Sarna.net, the Medium Laser has a battle value of 46. The PPC has a battle value of 176. Looking at TT and the fact that they have a 10s turn, the weapons mentioned above would have a BV of 4.6 and 17.6/s. Taking MWO into account, those BVs would change to 18.4 (Md Laser) and 70.4 (PPC) at a base. Taking into account Fast Fire, the BVs would change to 16.3 (Md Laser) and 59.8 (PPC). This is simply a mathematical equalization process based on recycle times. The problem, in my eyes, is that I don't know upon what FASA's math was based. Is it damage? Range? Heat? We have a lot of the same stats in MWO but some aren't the same. The Lrg Laser was 8/8 in TT bu tis 9/7 in MWO. How does that change the BV? How does our heat efficiencies impact BV?

Like I said, BV was used in a vaccum in TT where everything was stable. None of it was balanced but it was still stable. But, we don't have stability in this game so how you translate it to this environment?

Exactly. Creating BV in tabletop is simple math, because all those variables interact in a stable environment. Not only do the weapon stats change in MWO, but the whole game system that those values interact in changes constantly.

Quote

Maybe what I'm saying is that it is less about me disagreeing and more about someone showing me that i can be done properly.

Oh, it can be done correctly. It'd just be a lot harder than people think, and it would require much more ongoing maintenance because the formulas used to determine BV would themselves have to change as the ecosystem those stats work in changes.

[IceSerpent]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

I read everything. I may simply not agree, or completely see, what you're talking about.

According to Sarna.net, the Medium Laser has a battle value of 46. The PPC has a battle value of 176. Looking at TT and the fact that they have a 10s turn, the weapons mentioned above would have a BV of 4.6 and 17.6/s. Taking MWO into account, those BVs would change to 18.4 (Md Laser) and 70.4 (PPC) at a base. Taking into account Fast Fire, the BVs would change to 16.3 (Md Laser) and 59.8 (PPC). This is simply a mathematical equalization process based on recycle times. The problem, in my eyes, is that I don't know upon what FASA's math was based. Is it damage? Range? Heat? We have a lot of the same stats in MWO but some aren't the same. The Lrg Laser was 8/8 in TT bu tis 9/7 in MWO. How does that change the BV? How does our heat efficiencies impact BV?

Me:

IceSerpent, on 03 March 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Why don't you give us an example of how exactly people will be able to game the proposed system (as opposed to verbatim copy of tabletop BV that's not even on the table for obvious reasons)?

You claim to "read everything" and proceed to talk about why we can't copy the TT version? We neither want, nor suggest to copy the TT version.

Quote

Maybe what I'm saying is that it is less about me disagreeing and more about someone showing me that i can be done properly.

Most likely. What is being suggested has very little to do with TT, aside from both systems having mech abilities represented as a single numeric value.

[IceSerpent]

Wintersdark, on 03 March 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Easier, but very time consuming. Actually changing the numbers is easy. Collecting data, analyzing results, making good changes, and repeating - the whole iterative process - is very time consuming. It would require a lot of designer time (note - that is, game designer in particular, not software engineer, etc). There are few designers, and those are pretty much all working on the Community Warfare design, with off-hand peeks at weapon balance.

Well, it's not very time consuming - about a week worth of work for one person. Regardless, what alternatives do we have? Lobbies would also need to be designed and coded by somebody (presumably working on CW and/or weapon balance). Tonnage/weight class won't do anything, one might as well try to balance by colors and camo patterns. Leaving MM as-is is not a solution either.

Quote

We frequently call in electrical engineers at my work to fix maintenance issues our own maintenance staff can't handle for whatever reason. They typically get paid roughly $500/hr, with a minimum callin time. Sometimes, they'll come in, wiggle a wire, and that'll fix the problem. The company didn't pay them $500/hr to wiggle the wire, they paid them $500/hr to know which wire to wiggle.

You call professionals because you don't have necessary expertise in-house. PGI is a game development shop, they are supposed to be the professionals and they are supposed to know "which wire to wiggle" in this case.

Quote

Game design looks easy, but it's really not.

We're not asking electrical engineers to do it, we're asking game developers to do it.

Quote

You may as well ask for fully integrated combined arms in the game. It simply can't happen - not because it's a bad idea, but because it's one with a high cost to complete well. And it's one with a high cost to implement and only a moderate gain: You'd have matches with (assuming the BV numbers were very good) slightly better balance. Of course, weapon balance would be worse (time taking away from weapon balance to implement it) and community warfare would be further delayed. Worthwhile? I think not.

Essentially you are saying that PGI is incompetent. I don't necessarily disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a right way to develop software (games or otherwise) and there is a wrong way.
I doubt your company would be ok with electrical engineer saying that they can only wiggle one wire, because wiggling two wires is way too hard.

Edited by IceSerpent, 03 March 2014 - 11:31 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

That's all that I was saying, Ice. I don't disagree with BV being something that can be used. I'm just saying that we can't have the TT values transported over to the game because they're not apples to apples. A whole new system would need to be created and that system would need to be built so that it changes, correctly, as balance changes. And, as I said, I'm not sure how FASA created their BV system so PGI would have to be very careful and extremely diligent in how it builds it own value.

Here is an additional question for those pro-BV people: Say that PGI gets on board and creates their own numbers. How does this impact the MM? If everyone is worried about the limited population, doesn't this simply slow down and further limit the MM from creating games? Remember, the more variables that you put into the system, the more the system has to search to create a match. That means more time which means less games. People these days aren't so happy with waiting.

[IceSerpent]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

That's all that I was saying, Ice. I don't disagree with BV being something that can be used. I'm just saying that we can't have the TT values transported over to the game because they're not apples to apples. A whole new system would need to be created and that system would need to be built so that it changes, correctly, as balance changes. And, as I said, I'm not sure how FASA created their BV system so PGI would have to be very careful and extremely diligent in how it builds it own value.

Yep, it definitely will have to be a new system, MWO is too different from TT to even try to do it otherwise.

Quote

Here is an additional question for those pro-BV people: Say that PGI gets on board and creates their own numbers. How does this impact the MM? If everyone is worried about the limited population, doesn't this simply slow down and further limit the MM from creating games?

It's the other way around, because you can create more different mech builds that have the same BV than mechs that have the same tonnage or even weight class. So, MM would have more options to pick from. On top of that, you can allow for uneven teams and get even wider array of options. I.e. you can do something along the lines of short-handed team getting +5% of total BV per mech missing - 11v12 results in 11 having 5% higher BV, 10v12 results in 10 having 10% higher BV, etc (numbers are for illustration only). Basically, it makes job of MM much easier.

[Trauglodyte]

I asked that last question for a reason. The thing that kind of gets me right now is the lack of population in the game. But, more importantly, how the current queue system works against that population. I took two ghetto polls over on the Mech board:

http://mwomercs.com/...chs-do-you-own/

http://mwomercs.com/...ses-do-you-own/

Now, it definitely isn't 100% scientific and the data would need to be vetted and validated to get a definable number. But, the point is that almost everyone has 3 of the 4 weight classes. If our current population is only 2000 people during Prime, and that is being really generous, then that means that only 2000 mechs are in queue for games based on the current system. IF we were able to multi-queue, than, based on the information I pulled, that would increase the number of mechs available for games from 2000 to 6000 or more. That number would greaty shift based on if peopel were queueing mutliple mechs and other factors. The point is, games could be more precise when more information is available. The less that you have to work with, the greater the chance for error.

I don't mind and actually kind of like the idea of BV. But, and i could be wrong here, it feels like another way of doing addition when what we really need is multiplication. That isn't to say that both systems couldn't be used at the same time and I'm all for mechs being different for more variety. I just want games to be better in the least amount of time available.

[Wintersdark]

IceSerpent, on 03 March 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Well, it's not very time consuming - about a week worth of work for one person. Regardless, what alternatives do we have? Lobbies would also need to be designed and coded by somebody (presumably working on CW and/or weapon balance). Tonnage/weight class won't do anything, one might as well try to balance by colors and camo patterns. Leaving MM as-is is not a solution either.

A week of work for one person, out of, what, three game designers? That's a significant chunk of design time taken from CW. Then consider, said system is going to need continuous maintenance and iteration in live play. It's going to eat at least a few hours a week from one of those designers for perpetuity.

Quote

Essentially you are saying that PGI is incompetent. I don't necessarily disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a right way to develop software (games or otherwise) and there is a wrong way.

No. Well, maybe a little, but that's not what I'm getting at. It's simply a large expense out of PGI's already far too limited design staff.

They can't manage weapon balance AND community warfare design at the same time. I'm not saying this is because they suck, I'm saying it's because they simply lack the man-hours to do it. Because game design is hard work, and lots of things that appear easy turn out to be much more complex than you'd imagine once you actually dig into the details.

But whatever the reason, the glacial pace of weapon balance alone is clear indication that they cannot just devote dozens of manhours to designing a new system, then permanently shave off more to maintain it. There's no fat to trim, there.

[IceSerpent]

Wintersdark, on 03 March 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

But whatever the reason, the glacial pace of weapon balance alone is clear indication that they cannot just devote dozens of manhours to designing a new system, then permanently shave off more to maintain it. There's no fat to trim, there.

What do you do if your roof is leaking and you don't have time and/or necessary skills to fix it yourself? You hire someone else to do it. Your options are to find time and (learn to) do it yourself or call a contractor. The "I'd rather make some cookies bacause it's easier" is not really an option. PGI is in the same situation - they either have to do it themselves or find someone else to do it.

[IceSerpent]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

IF we were able to multi-queue, than, based on the information I pulled, that would increase the number of mechs available for games from 2000 to 6000 or more. That number would greaty shift based on if peopel were queueing mutliple mechs and other factors. The point is, games could be more precise when more information is available. The less that you have to work with, the greater the chance for error.

I don't mind and actually kind of like the idea of BV. But, and i could be wrong here, it feels like another way of doing addition when what we really need is multiplication. That isn't to say that both systems couldn't be used at the same time and I'm all for mechs being different for more variety. I just want games to be better in the least amount of time available.

That's a very good idea you got there, but it's not a balancing factor in itself - it doesn't tell MM which one of my 4 mechs should be chosen for the current match. So, it would have to be used in conjunction with some sort of mech rating (BV). Bottom line is that MM needs two balancing metrics. One to account for mech being used (BV) and one to account for player skill (Elo, which is currently broken, but is at least coded in and can be fixed). Those two metrics can be combined into a single "Combat Value".

[Tombstoner]

Sorry i dont see how a BP system matters when it all comes down to the players.

[IceSerpent]

Tombstoner, on 03 March 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

Sorry i dont see how a BP system matters when it all comes down to the players.

All doesn't come down to players, equipment used also makes a difference.

[Willard Phule]

Tombstoner, on 03 March 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

Sorry i dont see how a BP system matters when it all comes down to the players.

I'm guessing you've never run into a team with 4 D-DCs as a premade and all you've got are guys in trial spiders asking "how do I move forward?"

[Karl Streiger]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

I read everything. I may simply not agree, or completely see, what you're talking about.

According to Sarna.net, the Medium Laser has a battle value of 46. The PPC has a battle value of 176. Looking at TT and the fact that they have a 10s turn, the weapons mentioned above would have a BV of 4.6 and 17.6/s. Taking MWO into account, those BVs would change to 18.4 (Md Laser) and 70.4 (PPC) at a base. Taking into account Fast Fire, the BVs would change to 16.3 (Md Laser) and 59.8 (PPC). This is simply a mathematical equalization process based on recycle times. The problem, in my eyes, is that I don't know upon what FASA's math was based. Is it damage? Range? Heat? We have a lot of the same stats in MWO but some aren't the same. The Lrg Laser was 8/8 in TT bu tis 9/7 in MWO. How does that change the BV? How does our heat efficiencies impact BV?

Like I said, BV was used in a vaccum in TT where everything was stable. None of it was balanced but it was still stable. But, we don't have stability in this game so how you translate it to this environment?

Maybe what I'm saying is that it is less about me disagreeing and more about someone showing me that i can be done properly.

Hm nope - yoh have to clarify it a little bit
You can look at the exact BV calculation for a weapon here:
http://www.heavymeta...com/bv_calc.htm

As you see the damage (the major part) is modified by the average to hit number - and the sum (because of range)

value for the MLAS is: 30.88
value for PPC with Minimum Range: 117

in MWO: the average damge (considering that you hit 100%) with range brackets of 10m
is MLAS: 200
is PPC: 715

considering that the MLAS is a beam weapon: mabye only 70% of its damage really hit the target:
so MLAS is at 140 base damge
and PPC stays at 715

heat and mass shouldn't be calculated in BV.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 04 March 2014 - 06:19 AM.

[Purlana]

Willard Phule, on 04 March 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

I'm guessing you've never run into a team with 4 D-DCs as a premade and all you've got are guys in trial spiders asking "how do I move forward?"

ER LL spiders vs brawler DDCs? Easy win!

Edited by Purlana, 04 March 2014 - 06:46 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Willard Phule, on 04 March 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

I'm guessing you've never run into a team with 4 D-DCs as a premade and all you've got are guys in trial spiders asking "how do I move forward?"

its game over due to the new ness of the players. but how should MWO handle that type of example. By using BV your assuming 1 spider is weaker then 1 atlas. that's not true in MWO, it is in TT. reverse that situation and have 4 premade spiders drop against 4 pug atlas noobs. My money is on the veteran players in spiders.

Superior skill can over come superior force but in MWO player skill has a synergy with mech type that simply cant be accounted for. it sounds good to add in the mech as part of the equation to reasonably match tonnage because tonnage = armor.

But superior skill shoots at the back not the front. it hits the atlas in the weakest part, the RT/LT torso. they has what 10 point of armor.

We get a lot of 12-2 matches due to the stupidity of the players not a failure of the MM. its not a fire power issue. It's how people play the game.

Game starts and people run to there favorite spot and play the map the same way every time, trying to get in the first alpha.
lights hit the front lines first and 2-4 mechs leave position looking for an easy kill... not and follow right into the oncoming LRM, direct fire storm cause its the start of the game, no one has heat issues, thus you get full alphas and die.

MM cant fix stupid...... ELO and BV cant fit it either. ELO can at least put players into groups who know better.

[Shae Starfyre]

I think the reason they do not use BV is the XML file maintenance with any given change, added mech, etc.

In an online iteration of the game, BV would have to take into account a lot of information.

Not just armor, as an example, but the volumn of a particular location, size and density, percentage of surface area, etc. to compare say that "Awesome" to a an Atlas.

It would not just be the difference in tonnage.

I think this is why they are groing with the 1/1/1/1 concept in drops as it is easier; simply put.

If the BV was for informational purposes only, to provide some function of the Mech's capabilities like that heat to fire power ratio graph on the new UI, that would be different, as then it would be arbitrary and not require maintenance.

I have worked with XML files for Payroll Software, and it is not fun when the government decides to make radical changes like with the healthcare system or the Extra FMED changes. And this is far more simple in comparison.

I think of the software company I work for and our R&D guidelines, and one of the creeds is Simplicity. That's all we are seeing here.

With two patches a month with changes, sales, minor tweaks, a seemingly new Banshee that has alleged re-used parts from other mechs, etc., Simplicity is at work.

Edited by Aphoticus, 04 March 2014 - 06:56 AM.