289 replies to this topic

[WonderSparks]

After reading through all nine pages of responses, I -had- something to say at the start but I've since forgotten, so I'll just say something I've seen others say that I agree with: thanks for the communication regarding the problem, and "get well soon".

...Because, let's face it, at the very least I'm not logging into the game again until I can choose not to play Conquest again... (I saw that fix was coming soon, so I'm happy)
I don't like Conquest, and it doesn't like me! Trust me, I know...

[XtremWarrior]

Xenok, on 30 April 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

A blind and mentaly challenged person who looked at battletech would know that BV would be a key ingreedient to any multiplayer game based on the franchise. It would take any rational person 10 seconds, maybe to a minute to recognize this. Your talking to PGI, they are not rational. BV is how TT fixed the problem of imballanced matches what 30 years ago. Its had two major revisions to get it right, and a solid 20 years of testing. Who would want to take advanatage of all that?

yeah battle values! so perfect!

according to sarna:
Victor BV = (1.0) 1,165 (2.0) 1.370
Adder BV = (1.0) 1560 (2.0) 2.083

Yes, an Adder will be so much better than a Victor... Totally perfect, just do that plz PGI!

[Marmon Rzohr]

BT is even more broken then MWO ever was... Don't know why people keep bringing it up though...

However I still think 3/3/3/3 is a meh idea in the public q. It will make it so much easier to stop in a premade, but you'll have to wait longer for matches.

[Kmieciu]

XtremWarrior, on 30 April 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:

yeah battle values! so perfect!

according to sarna:
Victor BV = (1.0) 1,165 (2.0) 1.370
Adder BV = (1.0) 1560 (2.0) 2.083

Yes, an Adder will be so much better than a Victor... Totally perfect, just do that plz PGI!

Ok. Let's imagine we somehow knew the BV for MWO mechs. Would that stat be hidden from players, like ELO? Because if it wasn't, most of the people would flock to the highest BV mech. Since you can take only one into a match, why settle for anything lesser? Would you like to see 24 Highlanders in a match?

[ThatBum42]

Heh. You know, before this bug I always played Assault. I was avoiding the other gamemodes until now. I was holding off until I could join some sort of unit because I thought they required voice comms-level coordination, Now that I've actually played a fair amount of them, it's actually pretty fun!

In Conquest, I like how the battle flows from cap point to cap point in the early game, then it becomes a race of each side trying to suppress the other from holding their points, To me, winning on cap feels like just as skillful a feat as wiping out the enemy force. I like capping points in my lights and contributing to my team by doing something other than shooting.

Likewise for Skirmish. There's distinctly less turtling in Skirmish as compared to Assault, probably due to the lack of turrets and a base to defend. Bolder and more interesting moves are made. It makes it somewhat harder to stay near the back of the pack if you're fire support or a missile boat, but it's just another challenge to overcome.

What I'm trying to say is, sometimes it's nice to try new things!

EDIT: Sorry for being kinda off-topic.

Edited by ThatBum42, 30 April 2014 - 03:05 AM.

[Evil Ed]

I like that 3/3/3/3 is broken for pugs - it even things up as they are put up against premade 12-mans (who has to follow 3/3/3/3). Two wrong makes one right I guess...

[ssm]

Xenok, on 30 April 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

A blind and mentaly challenged person who looked at battletech would know that BV would be a key ingreedient to any multiplayer game based on the franchise. It would take any rational person 10 seconds, maybe to a minute to recognize this. Your talking to PGI, they are not rational. BV is how TT fixed the problem of imballanced matches what 30 years ago. Its had two major revisions to get it right, and a solid 20 years of testing. Who would want to take advanatage of all that?

Oh, this again. BV didn't really fix the problem with unbalanced matches in turn based TT game, applying it to online FP shooter would be nothing short of hilarious disaster.

And I'm glad that Devs know this.

[vortmax]

BV is a good idea... for the table top game.

BV is a bad idea for MWO, as it won't take into account pilot skill (as it does for TT), nor the changes the devs made to the weapons systems in a real-time game.

[Raggedyman]

Quax1102, on 30 April 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Great

It came back after about 25 minutes, slightly upset and muttering something about vans....

[Sprouticus]

While i do think that some sort of BV would have worked if PGI had embraced it, the fact of the matter is that IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. PIG is just not going to use it.

so talking about it is pointless.

[Roland]

Kmieciu, on 30 April 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

And how exactly are you going to measure BV in MWO,huh ? Do you even know what makes a mech or a weapon useful in this game? Are you going to multiply the mech tonnage by max engine rating and divide by hitbox surface area?

You could do it like this.

[Kmieciu]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

You could do it like this.

Great idea, but the BV would have to be hidden so that the players would not try to "game" the system.

Still a 2xPPC AC10 dragon will be a nice pugging tool if you want an easy time :-)

[Roland]

Kmieciu, on 30 April 2014 - 05:38 AM, said:

Great idea, but the BV would have to be hidden so that the players would not try to "game" the system.

Still a 2xPPC AC10 dragon will be a nice pugging tool if you want an easy time :-)

The way the system I described works, there's really no way to "game the system".

And you actually do NOT want to hide the value from players, because that's how the system works.... It functions similarly to any market based system. The BV allows players to make educated "buy" decisions, based on their perception of value for a chassis compared to the current price in the market.

[C E Dwyer]

Xenok, on 30 April 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

A blind and mentaly challenged person who looked at battletech would know that BV would be a key ingreedient to any multiplayer game based on the franchise. It would take any rational person 10 seconds, maybe to a minute to recognize this. Your talking to PGI, they are not rational. BV is how TT fixed the problem of imballanced matches what 30 years ago. Its had two major revisions to get it right, and a solid 20 years of testing. Who would want to take advanatage of all that?

TT doesn't have pin point accurate weapons they are built around dice roles and hitting random locations ( which everyone bitched about as taking out all the skill from the game)

Neither does BV take into consideration each individual persons ability in a match, skill is genrally far more important than the weapons and weight of a mech a well played locust will do significantly more damage than an Atlas piloted by someone who can't find the R key to target.

In short Battle values are pointless in twitcher games, and even the mentally challenged, can understand why this is so, as for the blind well...I think even a mentally challenged person could work out that they and games that rely on visual input are incompatable

[Roland]

Cathy, on 30 April 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

Neither does BV take into consideration each individual persons ability in a match, skill is genrally far more important than the weapons and weight of a mech a well played locust will do significantly more damage than an Atlas piloted by someone who can't find the R key to target.

But if both are piloted by equally skilled players, the atlas is going to win pretty much every single time.

Quote

In short Battle values are pointless in twitcher games,

Not really.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

So just because I was out last night, and I'm catching up.

Hotfix today addresses the mode selection issues, but 3/3/3/3 is still broken?

[QuimMorius]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

But if both are piloted by equally skilled players, the atlas is going to win pretty much every single time.

I'm afraid you are wrong on this one sir. 1v1 Atlas vs Locust, the Locust will use speed, maneuverability and use terrain and buildings to close the distance and just set up behind the Atlas, melting him down with lasers and machine guns. Whenever the Atlas turns the locust will adjust. I've done it many times, and I've seen it done even more times. Same goes for Highlander, Stalker, Banshee and so on.

But, if you change and go 2 Lights vs 2 Assaults, the story will in far more cases be totally different, as one light can't hide behind both Assaults at the same time. There will be at least one vs one and you get out tonned, at least when fighting in the open. Using distance and entire map with 2 Ravens (ER Large) vs 2 Atlai, Raven wins.

Edited by QuimMorius, 30 April 2014 - 06:55 AM.

[Jacob Side]

The fact that they had to turn off 3/3/3/3 and the fact that everyone on my units TS3 channel last night was in private matches makes me laugh. We broke the stupid thing on the first day.

Units will end up leaving the pug queue because we can play with more the 4 but less then 12 in private matches.
Most if not all of us are sitting on mastered mechs and a large bank of cbills so the fact that we don't get xp or cbills really doesn't matter.

We can play with our friends, any number of them.

Edited by Jacob Side, 30 April 2014 - 07:00 AM.

[Roland]

QuimMorius, on 30 April 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

I'm afraid you are wrong on this one sir. 1v1 Atlas vs Locust, the Locust will use speed, maneuverability and use terrain and buildings to close the distance and just set up behind the Atlas, melting him down with lasers and machine guns. Whenever the Atlas turns the locust will adjust. I've done it many times, and I've seen it done even more times. Same goes for Highlander, Stalker, Banshee and so on.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Or rather, you're making the mistake that many people do, in that you're imagining a situation where one pilot is driven by a great pilot while the other is a fool... Given that we specifically described the pilots as being equal, this doesn't apply to the scenario.

A good assault pilot isn't going to simply LET your locust stand behind him and chew through his rear armor. Many terrible assault pilots will, but good ones don't.

In addition to the simple ability to simply use terrain to make it impossible for the locust to stand behind him, the reality is that a well piloted assault, even an Atlas, can generally always get his weapons to bear on a max speed light mech if he's able to correctly use his throttle, twist, and arms. He won't be able to continually keep the target in his sights, but that's exactly why the Atlas wins in the matchup against an equally skilled locust.. because he only needs to land ONE shot on the locust to leg it. And then the locust dies.

When you remove skill from the equation, certain mechs are simply BETTER than others. And honestly, this is always going to be the case.

In the situation with the Atlas fighting the Locust, the Atlas basically needs to be consistently incompetent for a long time, because it will take the locust a long time to chew through even his rear armor... simply because the locust has very limited firepower, and the Atlas has large amounts of armor.

Meanwhile, the Locust only needs to screw up ONCE to die... One missed reversal and he's in the firing arc of the Atlas, and his leg gets blown off.

[RetroActive]

Roland, on 30 April 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Or rather, you're making the mistake that many people do, in that you're imagining a situation where one pilot is driven by a great pilot while the other is a fool... Given that we specifically described the pilots as being equal, this doesn't apply to the scenario.

A good assault pilot isn't going to simply LET your locust stand behind him and chew through his rear armor. Many terrible assault pilots will, but good ones don't.

In addition to the simple ability to simply use terrain to make it impossible for the locust to stand behind him, the reality is that a well piloted assault, even an Atlas, can generally always get his weapons to bear on a max speed light mech if he's able to correctly use his throttle, twist, and arms. He won't be able to continually keep the target in his sights, but that's exactly why the Atlas wins in the matchup against an equally skilled locust.. because he only needs to land ONE shot on the locust to leg it. And then the locust dies.

When you remove skill from the equation, certain mechs are simply BETTER than others. And honestly, this is always going to be the case.

In the situation with the Atlas fighting the Locust, the Atlas basically needs to be consistently incompetent for a long time, because it will take the locust a long time to chew through even his rear armor... simply because the locust has very limited firepower, and the Atlas has large amounts of armor.

Meanwhile, the Locust only needs to screw up ONCE to die... One missed reversal and he's in the firing arc of the Atlas, and his leg gets blown off.

Your scenario assumes the pilots are of equal skill. ZERO pilots are exactly equal in skill. In a typical match you can have a wide variety of skill sets.

Take this scenario. You have a Dragon Slayer on each side with the same exact loadout. The pilot on one side is mediocre and the pilot on the other is elite. How will your BV system balance this?