77 replies to this topic

[Reitrix]

MoonUnitBeta, on 09 June 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

Well.. It's not exactly battle value, but it is indeed based on a points system which a matchmaker looks at and balances the match around it. These quotes, I believe, are paraphrased/shortened. For the actual source, go here.

http://www.reddit.co...of_citizens_15/


[/list]and just under that paragraph is followed by another about game modes that support roles. However, do keep in mind that Arena Commander is meant to be an arcade-style game inside of the main game. So I'm not saying that we needs these specific modes, but a mission style type of play would be very interesting (looking at you Attack/Defend, and also other possibilities).



SO WITH THAT OUT OF THE WAY, THE QUESTIONS:
Battle Value/Matchmaker:

• 1) How do you feel about the difficulties that PGI has encountered while trying to implement 4x3?
  
• 2) Would you prefer that Battle Value for each mech is taken into account in the matchmaker?
  
• 3) Is that preference including ELO in the equation, or not?
  
• 4) What pro's or cons (or both) do you see with matchmaking via Battle Value, vs, via 4x3 class limits. If you answered yes to #3, then include ELO if comparing both of them.

Game Modes:

• 1) How important are role specific game modes to you? Can you think of an example game mode to support your interest (optional)?
  
• 2) Do "respawn" or "arcade" game modes interest you at all? For example, Capture the Flag, King of the Hill, Survival (one team is massively OP with few numbers with only one life, while the other team has unlimited respawns and is at normal power who receive armor buffs, rate of fire buffs, damage buffs, etc, 4vs8)
  
• 3) Would you support the decision for certain game modes to only be assessable through Premium Matches?

Please add any other comments you would like to add on a separate line/paragraph.

I like that he mentions "like WH40k", I'm a fairly avid 40k TT player (Love my Space Wolves) Yet the balance between races is entirely broken precisely because of the point system.
As an example, my 1500 Space Wolf army had 2/3rds of the units my friends 1500 Necron army, But my wolves cannot win. it is literally impossible, as he has more massed firepower of the sme quality than i can possibly field AND takes 3 Flying units to boot!

Translating that into MWO, if an Assault was rated higher than a medium, then rated higher again due to his equipment being necessarily higher value than that medium because he is larger and designed to take that stuff, You would end up in matches where you had 4 Atlas in standard configs thrown to the wolves against 12 mediums in their low weight high volume weapons.

4 Assaults cannot hope to bring enough firepower to bear on 12 targets focus firing them before they get wiped out.
Being outnumbered is NOT good balance!
In the match were my brawling Ilya scored 7 kills, i *never* encountered all 7 of those all at once. Or i'd have died, no matter how good i am.

Unfortunate as it is that people take ridiculous ineffective builds, you can't fix stupid.
A skill averaging system combined with a class restriction is about the best kind of balance we could hope for.
it prevents idiotic matchups like my RIver City match where i took my K2, a Raven for ECM and an A1 for a flank attack, It worked great for a few minutes, we hit their rearmost sniping forces and tore them apart. (1xLight, 2x Medium, 1xheavy)
Then 4 Atlas, 2 Highlanders and a Victor cruised around the corner. We didn't have any possible kind of chance to survive that engagement.
Thats not balance, or fun variety, thats being thrown to the wolves against overwhelming massed firepower.
Had that been a 3/3/3/3 match, The reduction in enemy firepower would have been massive, we could have escaped, because they would not have the firepower to reduce all 3 of us to smoldering wrecks in the time it took to see them.

Edited by Reitrix, 09 June 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Reitrix, on 09 June 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

I like that he mentions "like WH40k", I'm a fairly avid 40k TT player (Love my Space Wolves) Yet the balance between races is entirely broken precisely because of the point system.
As an example, my 1500 Space Wolf army had 2/3rds of the units my friends 1500 Necron army, But my wolves cannot win. it is literally impossible, as he has more massed firepower of the sme quality than i can possibly field AND takes 3 Flying units to boot!

Translating that into MWO, if an Assault was rated higher than a medium, then rated higher again due to his equipment being necessarily higher value than that medium because he is larger and designed to take that stuff, You would end up in matches where you had 4 Atlas in standard configs thrown to the wolves against 12 mediums in their low weight high volume weapons.

4 Assaults cannot hope to bring enough firepower to bear on 12 targets focus firing them before they get wiped out.
Being outnumbered is NOT good balance!
In the match were my brawling Ilya scored 7 kills, i *never* encountered all 7 of those all at once. Or i'd have died, no matter how good i am.

Unfortunate as it is that people take ridiculous ineffective builds, you can't fix stupid.
A skill averaging system combined with a class restriction is about the best kind of balance we could hope for.
it prevents idiotic matchups like my RIver City match where i took my K2, a Raven for ECM and an A1 for a flank attack, It worked great for a few minutes, we hit their rearmost sniping forces and tore them apart. (1xLight, 2x Medium, 1xheavy)
Then 4 Atlas, 2 Highlanders and a Victor cruised around the corner. We didn't have any possible kind of chance to survive that engagement.
Thats not balance, or fun variety, thats being thrown to the wolves against overwhelming massed firepower.
Had that been a 3/3/3/3 match, The reduction in enemy firepower would have been massive, we could have escaped, because they would not have the firepower to reduce all 3 of us to smoldering wrecks in the time it took to see them.

It's not broken because of the points system, but because 6th and 7th edition are unplayable due to numerous bad decisions on GW's part.

[627]

hadn't SC like 33k players in the first hours?

Ok, Hype and all, but I guess the matchmaking pool for SC will be far far greater than the one in MWO.

You can build complex matchmaking rules all day, if you only have a handful of players at a given time you have eiter an unbalanced match or none.

[FupDup]

How many people who are in favor of ButtValue are volunteering to pilot a low-BV mech into combat against a high BV one? Yes, that's right, "bad" mechs would still be able to be placed against "good" ones, unless you have every mech in a given match have the same average BV rather than both teams having the same total.

Part of why this isn't an issue in TT is because you can and generally do control more than one unit at a time. It doesn't matter that my Panthers are outright inferior to any heavy or assault mech in existence, because I'm not sitting in the cockpit of one. I'm watching them from above, giving orders to them and other mechs.

But in MWO, all you get is one mech, period. This isn't like playing Starcraft where you can send a huge army of Zerglings against a single Ultralisk or something. This is like playing Starcraft and sending ONE Zergling against an Ultralisk. Not many people would enjoy that, methinks...

[MonkeyCheese]

MoonUnitBeta, on 09 June 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Yeah. Hello.

Hai

MoonUnitBeta, on 09 June 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

I'm interested in your thoughts about Battle Value, perhaps if you think PGI will watch the success or downfall of their point system, etc. Also, survey.

I think BV, Weights and any other ideas should all be considered for MWO and especially for CW battles even the normal public queue is left the same as it is now.

Oh and stock matches too

Someone needs to get that test server a real workout.

GalaxyBluestar, on 09 June 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

LOL people thinking the 2 year delayed CW isn't vaporware compared to SC battlevalues.

Hey I was talking about SC dont get me started on MWO CW...

[Ryvucz]

I'm still more in favor of an ELO score based off of chassis, not weight class. (Locust / Jenner should be different ELO scores, not the same for better accuracy)

Not sure how well a BV will work out (never played BattleTech i.e. tabletop)

[627]

To be true, those 4x3 matches I had were pretty close and fun. And there was no need for BV.

Ok, those were only 3 or 4 matches because MM sucked... but still. If they get it to work it could help.

[N0MAD]

While i think BV is a good way for some games i dont think it will work for MW. Playing WT i can see its value, you cant have a Spitfire Mk24 with 700kph and 4x20mm canon vs a Bf109 E1 with 500kph and 4x 7mm MGs, they are both single seat fighters after all.
Personally i think Tonnage is the go, MM takes first 600 tons (example only) and grabs the next 600 tons or closest match say 590 tons and matches them.. Faster MM and relatively matched weight for weight.
Ok there is a slight problem here as in , One Atlas on team 1 is more Experted than the one on team 2. But most wont mind this as in the Second Atlas will with games get its Features improved, providing some challenge to that pilot over a short time of playing. Theoretically ELO also kicks in (idont think ELO works) as PGI has settled on this system.

3x4 wont work in the long run, 2 main reasons i think.
1. For this to work in a timely way, you need a huge player base, i personally dont think it has it, when it was run the wait times experienced seems to show this.
2. Its forcing people to play something they dont really want to, or persist and get long waiting times, people as a general rule dont like being forced to do anything or wait long times when time is a limited luxury.

[Kassatsu]

FupDup, on 09 June 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

How many people who are in favor of ButtValue are volunteering to pilot a low-BV mech into combat against a high BV one? Yes, that's right, "bad" mechs would still be able to be placed against "good" ones, unless you have every mech in a given match have the same average BV rather than both teams having the same total.

I would, considering it would get me another 1+ teammates to rush headlong into the enemy team's wall of bullets and die a horrible death instead of using our numbers to flank and overwhelm them.

Imagine a massive team of locusts, vs whatever equivalent value is given to the enemy team. Sure you'd probably lose, but the sheer numbers would cause chaos in the enemy ranks and more than a few to scatter so you could take them out one at a time. The rest would wisely group up (assuming they didn't ALL scatter or leave their slower friends behind), and win the match, but it would be fun.

People tend to forget that games exist to be enjoyed, not to min/max 720noscope esports all day long. Sadly, "people" includes the developers and publishers.

[van Uber]

Sidekick, on 09 June 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

Battle value is used in:
World of tanks
War thunder

Classic tabletop games that use it:
Every single one



Obviously, this system will never work.

What are you on about. World of Tanks does not use BV, their matchmaker is still just based on tiers. WarThunder have a battle rating within each tier, which they add on top of their version of Elo, so it's a take on BV, but not quite. It is still under evaluation by Gajin.

So if we are going to talk about the merits about BV in MWO, could we please keep to the implemented designs and not concepts (StarCitizen). While there is a basic, half-implementation of BV in WarThunder, there really are few comparable examples. And if you want to include TT-games as an example, please note that there are a lot more broken systems than functioning ones, for a simple reason: BV is a ***** to get right.

So why should MWO implement a system that is hard to get right, that will be an enormous administrative task to keep up to date and will not in any way solve role warfare or imbalance between chassis?

[Kassatsu]

van Uber, on 10 June 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

What are you on about. World of Tanks does not use BV, their matchmaker is still just based on tiers. WarThunder have a battle rating within each tier, which they add on top of their version of Elo, so it's a take on BV, but not quite. It is still under evaluation by Gajin.

I've also never seen the total player count dip below 23,000 in war thunder. Notice MWO has not ONCE stated how many players are online.

Edited by Kassatsu, 10 June 2014 - 12:50 AM.

[Robert blackseven Sohn]

van Uber, on 10 June 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

WarThunder have a battle rating within each tier, which they add on top of their version of Elo, so it's a take on BV, but not quite. It is still under evaluation by Gajin.

So if we are going to talk about the merits about BV in MWO, could we please keep to the implemented designs and not concepts (StarCitizen). While there is a basic, half-implementation of BV in WarThunder, there really are few comparable examples.

More Importantly for our discussion, the WT Battle Rating for a given plane does NOT adjust based on unlocked upgrades, and those upgrades paths are static and predetermined.

That system will not work at all in MWO, which has vast customization. Even just taking the successful meta upgrades, there's far more latitude per chasis than there exists in War Thunder or World of Tanks. It's easy to say "oh WT has a BR system, MWO should have BV" when you ignore the vastly differing requirements between the two games.

Kassatsu, on 10 June 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

I've also never seen the total player count dip below 23,000 in war thunder. Notice MWO has not ONCE stated how many players are online.

Well, back in closed beta, they had a counter, but they took it off pretty early.

[R Razor]

Robert blackseven Sohn, on 10 June 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:

SNIP "MWO, which has vast customization" SNIP

By vast customization I assume you mean multiple mechs that can carry jump jets, AC5's and PPC's because that is, discounting the maybe 10% of players that don't and won't buy in to the min-max tryhard mindset, the only customization you really see anymore.

[Robert blackseven Sohn]

R Razor, on 10 June 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

By vast customization I assume you mean multiple mechs that can carry jump jets, AC5's and PPC's because that is, discounting the maybe 10% of players that don't and won't buy in to the min-max tryhard mindset, the only customization you really see anymore.

If the point of BV is to balance the weapons so that loadouts become more varied, a lot of work will go into formulating BV for currently unused weapons (with the idea that a favorable BV will make them more attractive.

The *point* I was making was that far more customization exists in MWO vs. WoT or WT, even restricting the discussion to "meta builds" - which was part of the post that you conveniently snipped out.

It's dishonest to say "lol Warthunder has BV, so should MWO" without appreciating how much more work it is for MWO.

Edited by Robert blackseven Sohn, 10 June 2014 - 03:04 AM.

[MisterPlanetarian]

SC's system is designed for a space sim with some multi crew ships and a large variety of ships overall. To suggest that its conclusions are applicable to MWO is hyperbolic, and besides it's not even certain how well it works for SC in practice.


3x4 is not there to be the be all end all solution to MWO matchmaking, it's there to provide team and role balance in random public games. I'm sure the CW and Faction mode matchmaker will be very different.

As for BV, the concept is nice but it's pretty much impossible to get right in MWO since there are hundreds of variables to count for, all that will require adjusting every time a weapon gets changed, even if just a little. And besides, it doesn't garantuee weightclass balance and will only devolve into abusive stacks like it always does.


On the OP's Questions:
*The one gamemode I want most is Dropship mode, where we can bring a set number of mechs to the field and respawn in one after we loose one. Aerial drop mode for each respawn from some huge dropship over your base every time you respawn would be cool as hell. The dropship should be armed to the teeth and destructible aswell.

*I also want a pre drop lobby for public games where I can pick a mech when I know what map i'll get.

Edited by MisterPlanetarian, 10 June 2014 - 03:16 AM.

[Gooner]

I've never played TT so I can't really comment on BV. But honestly I'd be happy with a simple system whereby the matchmaker takes two players using the same weight class (or even the same mech?) and places them on opposite teams. You might end up with 2/3/3/4, 1/3/3/5, whatever, but the other team will have the same. I think it really hard to take player skill or weapon loadouts into account, so we end up with complicated algorithms that end up breaking.

And in the end, no game will ever achieve perfect balance. You will never completely remove lopsided results like 12-0. Heck, just look at professional sports, with all the rules, players training for hours a day, and you still get games like the last Superbowl.

[X O]

I don't know why everyone trys to compare SC with MW:O .

But at first, why is Battlevaule the holy grail of balance?
It's works well in Tabletop but you can't just keep this in a first person shooter.

1. 10V12 and so on:
I don't like it to fight aggainst an lager oder samler team in PUG games. The bigger team got some advantages regarding map control, taking points and so on. If you drop on the smaller you need better Teamplay to win the game, cause every kill for the big team will hurt you more than the bigger team.

2. Complexity:
Just equip my mech and drop into battle? Not possible I think or the matchmaker takes forever to find a team for me. 4-3 may not be the best choise (I would like to see an max limit for team tonage), but it will find quick matches for everyone.
If you need to keep in mind the Battlevaule besides Tonage, Hardpoints ect this system will get very confusing for new players. (Just say Ghost Heat and everyone gets mad)

Ok thats just my 2 cents about Battlevalue. And sorry for my lack of good english skills .

Edited by Ulkesh, 10 June 2014 - 03:36 AM.

[KinLuu]

To be completely honest, the Arena Commander release was a story of massive disappointment for me.

The game looks great, but feels **** (Everything is so slooooow...). You can only fly a handfull of ships, in one mission.

Basically, it feels like a cheap browser game. I had expected more - but maybe I was to optimistic. I wonder if they will be able to release the PU beta in 2016.

[R Razor]

Robert blackseven Sohn, on 10 June 2014 - 03:03 AM, said:

If the point of BV is to balance the weapons so that loadouts become more varied, a lot of work will go into formulating BV for currently unused weapons (with the idea that a favorable BV will make them more attractive.

The *point* I was making was that far more customization exists in MWO vs. WoT or WT, even restricting the discussion to "meta builds" - which was part of the post that you conveniently snipped out.

It's dishonest to say "lol Warthunder has BV, so should MWO" without appreciating how much more work it is for MWO.

Wait, so you mean we shouldn't want PGI to work for our money and time?

It isn't a question of how much work it is so much as it's a question of the value that the result of that work would provide to the player base. MWO most certainly needs something akin to BV to balance the individual matches........failing that there is no hope that anything remotely approaching a balanced and fun game will exist. As it stands now, there are only realistically 3 or 4 mech chassis and loadouts that newer players can take (note I do not mean NEW players, only those that have been around beyond their rookie matches) and expect to consistently perform well in. That is not mass customization despite the available options. Customization fails to mean anything when customizing outside of such a narrow window relegates your chosen mech to second or third tier status despite being of equal tonnage and pilot skill.

[Wingbreaker]

According to battle value systems:

X² smaller platforms sporting small weapons are often as valuable as X large platform sporting a traditional set of weapons.

The constant example is Savannah Masters vs Atlas:

215 vs 1897

So by BV, 8 (or 9) savannah masters are equal to a single atlas. This is laughable, even at best. We all know what's going to happen to something that has 9 medium lasers locked onto it. Even if the Atlas can tear through a savannah master per round, the likely chances of it taking down all 9 prior to having its weapons stripped, or the possibilities of TAC, mean that it has a very small chance of winning a supposedly 'balanced' fight.

And frankly, the situation gets worse if you merely switch the Savannah masters to the SL variant. Mind you, they now have two small lasers per, but their BV sinks to 131, meaning that you now have 14 Savannah Masters versus a single atlas.

This is why BV systems are broken. In BT, It does not account for the mathematical realities that BT involves. It assumes that bigger is better, and assigns values by the top end damage that a weapon can do.

It will always be easy to break.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 10 June 2014 - 04:12 AM.