51 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Purlana, on 04 March 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

ER LL spiders vs brawler DDCs? Easy win!

[Tombstoner]

How are BV calculated....

whats the reasoning/justification behind the valuse ?

why should they apply to MWO?

[IceSerpent]

Tombstoner, on 04 March 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

How are BV calculated....

Every beneficial "feature" of equipment used (mech build in this case) has a numeric value. Those values are added into a single sum.

Quote

whats the reasoning/justification behind the valuse ?

The more beneficial a given feature is, the higher value it has.

Quote

why should they apply to MWO?

For the same reason it applies to any other game that allows customization, i.e. "item level" in MMOs is a very simplistic BV system.

[Tombstoner]

IceSerpent, on 04 March 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Every beneficial "feature" of equipment used (mech build in this case) has a numeric value. Those values are added into a single sum.



The more beneficial a given feature is, the higher value it has.



For the same reason it applies to any other game that allows customization, i.e. "item level" in MMOs is a very simplistic BV system.

Your sorta swaying me from the dont need BV but ensuring the presence of + numbers of ECM on each side is reasonable. but matching my teams load out because the noob you drop with chose to use 9 small lasers in his HB. its not like there is a great variety in weapons. tonnage should typically fix this. and why i dont see a need for BV

[IceSerpent]

Tombstoner, on 04 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Your sorta swaying me from the dont need BV but ensuring the presence of + numbers of ECM on each side is reasonable. but matching my teams load out because the noob you drop with chose to use 9 small lasers in his HB. its not like there is a great variety in weapons. tonnage should typically fix this. and why i dont see a need for BV

Tonnage is not even relevant - even in a perfect world where you get an exact 1-to-1 match (i.e. your team gets a 35t mech and my team gets a 35 team mech, your team gets an 80t mech and my team gets an 80t mech), some mech variants are simply better than others, not to mention that you might end up with a person who forgot to put JJs on that HGN while I get a normal HGN pilot. The idea itself is just ridiculous, it's kind of like saying that good old F15A is equal to F-22 because they happen to have the same weight. We don't compare fighter jets by weight, we don't compare tanks by weight, we don't compare assault rifles by weight...why should we compare mechs by weight?

[Bobzilla]

If they would have started with BV, it would have been much better. For balancing weapons, you would simply adjust a number on a spreadsheet (BV). That's it, no ghost heat or fire mechanics, or damage adjustments, or torso twist or engine rating, just one little number on a spreadsheet. Would it take some time to balance BV? Sure, but look at the balancing that is still going on and the degree.

My only problem with a CV system is the lots of new/bad players in assaults vs really good players in lights. I think this type of scenario would happen frequently. Good equipment in bad hands is way worse than bad equipment in good hands.

[Tombstoner]

IceSerpent, on 04 March 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Tonnage is not even relevant - even in a perfect world where you get an exact 1-to-1 match (i.e. your team gets a 35t mech and my team gets a 35 team mech, your team gets an 80t mech and my team gets an 80t mech), some mech variants are simply better than others, not to mention that you might end up with a person who forgot to put JJs on that HGN while I get a normal HGN pilot. The idea itself is just ridiculous, it's kind of like saying that good old F15A is equal to F-22 because they happen to have the same weight. We don't compare fighter jets by weight, we don't compare tanks by weight, we don't compare assault rifles by weight...why should we compare mechs by weight?

Tonnage is spent on armor, HS, weapons, Ammo. Where as the F-15 vs. F-22 are very different tech generations on a lb to lb basis the f-22 is clearly superior relative to a set of standards. same for the other examples you use. In BT technology is equivalent for all items performance is dictated by tonnage. that's why a BV system works for TT. 3000 points worth of stingers is = to 3000 points of atlas or 5x 20 tone mechs is = to one 100 tone mech. nether works for TT or MWO.

If Mechs in MWO are balanced perfectly irregardless of tonnage. a 20 ton mech should be the same as a 100 tone mech but that is clearly not the same. PGI doesnt have the resources to exquisitely model its game correctly to account for mech size or art work effects.

Hence why they are using a ELO and mech tonnage system. it matches the combination of player skill with mech tonnage. what the player does with that tonnage cant be distilled down into a BV system like it can for a 2d6 TT game.

[IceSerpent]

Tombstoner, on 04 March 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Tonnage is spent on armor, HS, weapons, Ammo.

...or not...or it's spent on wrong type of ammo...or bad weapons...

Quote

Where as the F-15 vs. F-22 are very different tech generations on a lb to lb basis the f-22 is clearly superior relative to a set of standards. same for the other examples you use. In BT technology is equivalent for all items performance is dictated by tonnage.

Hint: BT doesn't use the term "tech level" just for giggles. AC20 and Gauss are "very different tech generations". Overall performance in TT is not dictated by tonnage either - you can easily create a medium mech that would outperform a stock AS7-D for example, despite that Atlas weighing 100 tons.

Quote

that's why a BV system works for TT. 3000 points worth of stingers is = to 3000 points of atlas or 5x 20 tone mechs is = to one 100 tone mech. nether works for TT or MWO.

While 3000 points worth of stingers is indeed equal to 3000 points worth of Atlases, it doesn't necessarily mean that 5 stingers = 1 Atlas, depends on the variants. Which is why tonnage means nothing in TT either - blindly going for "5 x 20t is the same as 1 x 100t" can result in either of the sides having an advantage.

Quote

If Mechs in MWO are balanced perfectly irregardless of tonnage. a 20 ton mech should be the same as a 100 tone mech but that is clearly not the same. PGI doesnt have the resources to exquisitely model its game correctly to account for mech size or art work effects.

Why do you think that 20t mech should be the same as a 100t mech? It can be set up like this if mech speed generates huge increase in BV, by why would you want it to be that way?

[Tombstoner]

IceSerpent, on 04 March 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

...or not...or it's spent on wrong type of ammo...or bad weapons...


While 3000 points worth of stingers is indeed equal to 3000 points worth of Atlases, it doesn't necessarily mean that 5 stingers = 1 Atlas, depends on the variants. Which is why tonnage means nothing in TT either - blindly going for "5 x 20t is the same as 1 x 100t" can result in either of the sides having an advantage.



Why do you think that 20t mech should be the same as a 100t mech? It can be set up like this if mech speed generates huge increase in BV, by why would you want it to be that way?

Mistaken ammo is a good point. it is a liability that would ruin the game play of eveyone o involved and thus a good point supporting BV, but this can be handled in the mech lab..... you can't launch if your carrying lrm ammo with no launchers, same for no engine.

I personally think the power curve between 20 and 100 tons is way to flat. I would want 12x 20 ton mechs to = one atlas.
but that would require a substantial over haul of the scouting game to make it meaning full to take a 20 ton scout mech.
the thing is people dont want to play that kind of game, mech sim. they want something closer to team mech death match. and that means light mech need to be closer in performance to 100 tones mech. is a way the game needs lights to counter assaults.

assaults>heavy>med>light>assault. its circular in a sence that only with good game play by the assaults and heavy cant hey survive against the lights.

SO yes i can see some valididty in a BV system but it can be handled in the mech lab..... and unless people are willing to deliberately launch in matches that are 10-14 or 8 - 16 BV and ELO being = , I still think superior numbers cant be captured by the BV or ELO system.

[Willard Phule]

For what it's worth...I don't think any of this matters anymore.

Since the latest patch, it's PAINFULLY obvious to me that the Elo system....whether it's working or not....is irrelevant.

THERE IS NO ELO LEVEL THAT PUTS YOU OUT OF REACH OF THE NOOBS. Read that again and let it sink in, real deep.

There is NO reason for you to strive to get a better Elo so you don't have to drop with idiots driving trial mechs in 3PV, asking questions like "How me forward to move?"

So, all this talk of balancing stuff by BattleValue...although my favorite cause...is completely and utterly useless until PGI does something about this Elo system they've got set up.

The #1 thing that drives me to play something besides MW:O is being stuck on the shortbus with the latest crop of idiots.

[IceSerpent]

Tombstoner, on 05 March 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

assaults>heavy>med>light>assault. its circular in a sence that only with good game play by the assaults and heavy cant hey survive against the lights.

This is not necessarily true in MWO (or in TT for that matter), as it heavily depends on the mechs and configs chosen. I.e. Firestarter (fully upgraded/unlocked) would have an advantage over an Atlas, but not so much over a Victor. Locust is likely to lose against any assault. It also depends on the situation - if that Atlas can put its back to a wall and just park there (i.e. in skirmish mode), light won't be able to do much aside from running away and calling it a draw. Same goes for other weight classes - some are very good against certain opponents, some are not so good, and some are just plain bad.

Quote

SO yes i can see some valididty in a BV system but it can be handled in the mech lab..... and unless people are willing to deliberately launch in matches that are 10-14 or 8 - 16 BV and ELO being = , I still think superior numbers cant be captured by the BV or ELO system.

It doesn't need to be deliberate. All you need is Elo being equal and total BV of one team = total BV of another team. If it results in 10v12, it's still an even match because the team of 10 has better mechs and you can give them BV bonus for being shorthanded on top of that if you want to (i.e. 5% per mech missing, team of 12 with 12000 BV "equals" team of 10 with 13200 BV, or something along these lines).

[TygerLily]

Well, there's definitely no way that Awesomes and Victors are equal. But Chassis- or Weight-matching would say they are.

"But the pilot makes all the difference!" You're right! But what you are secretly doing is assigning those two mechs a BV of zero and then assigning a pilot of BV based on their skill.

Vice versa, if the pilots are exactly equal, a Victor will beat an Awesome every time. Meaning, the pilot skills have been assigned zero and the Mech have a disparity (of their value...in battle) which could be numerically assigned.

No doubt, getting all the right values for a myriad of variables would be challenging but I don't think saying "it wouldn't work from the get-go" is quite right.

Besides, we:

- have a good start: a whole "Mech Tier" thread with community input.

- We have the clamoring masses complaining about the flavor-of-the-month...Maybe they even do away with heat-scale and instead institute a BV-scale...certain components (such as "Jagermech" + "AC/20" + "AC/20") trigger a spike in BV...whenever the devs hear a repeated complaint about a certain dominating build, they can investigate, and apply the scale appropriately.

Freedom abounds! Go ahead, cheese it up, you'll only be able to afford 4 of them...and, OMG, you'll have to round out your drop with 'cheaper' Mech...may be there'd be cause to dust off some old chassis!

Edited by TygerLily, 05 March 2014 - 09:03 AM.