77 replies to this topic

[van Uber]

R Razor, on 10 June 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:

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

I don't think anyone is saying that. But there is a difference between getting PGI to work for our money and expect them to administrate some leviathan feature that give very little in return.

For lets face it, what does actually BV bring to the table in regards to MWO? A potential to more even teams in an extremely roundabout way. So if that is the main gain, is there not an easier way to reach that goal, a solution less of a nightmare to administrate?

[R Razor]

Wingbreaker, on 10 June 2014 - 04:06 AM, said:

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.

Which is the reason that BV has to be balanced against common sense on the part of the folks selecting their respective mechs..........you can't eliminate the human element nor can you eliminate the human tendency to stupidity in groups.

[Bobzilla]

Weather a BV system is better or worse doesn't matter. They would have to change almost everything to empliment it as it would be a complete different direction they are going trying to balance everything vs everything and a set numbers of players on one side. Even then, a terrible player with a high BV will not perform as well as a great player with a low BV, so a progresstion would have to be implimented, which would mean everything ever purchased would have to be erased.

For BV to work, espically with roles, they would have to allow teams of different size (10 assaults vs 8 assaults+6 lights). On top of that, they would have to have a shifting value for the most used items (the more it's used the higher it's value). Otherwise there will be no matching, it will be 24 identical mechs, with identical loadouts, having the highest BV possible (assuming they nail the proper valuses).

[C E Dwyer]

Vassago Rain, on 09 June 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

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.

The BV system in Warhammer, in both 40K, and Fantasy, has been seriously broken from the very first editions, ( own both ) it has never been of any use what so ever.

High quality troops in small numbers will all ways crush average/low quality troops, and the longer the games go one the more obvious this becomes, it why in tournements the turn numbers are low to stop it being so obvious.

As an example take one chaos hero warrior and one unit of chaos knights the other side make them human halberdiers and or swordsmen and give them 5 times the Bv of the chaos side, and play a game of unlimited turns until extinction (killed or fleeof table) of one side.

For 40K use terminator squad and hero against gretchin

If the humans or gretchin win I'll know someone cheated.

ohh and Bob above me nailed it with his post, and to add.

BV only has any value balancing a game in a combat system where hit location and hitting or not is randomly generated, in games where the skill of the player determines hitting with a pin point, it fails badly.

ohh and Gajins war thunder system is even more broken than PGI's ELO

Even if I try to use all lower teir aircraft 1's and 2's I'm frequently facing spitfires, beaufighters, me109's in nimrods and hawker biplanes.

The world of tanks example is also an extremely poor example of proving BV 'works' as WoT has a proper teir system where weapon and vechile quality and power goes up and it limits what tanks face each other in spread, which even they took close to two years to get right and decide it wasn't fair for a t-59 to be fighting a panzer III, and just how much QQing was there from the sad pointless people losing their point and click win Tanks

Edited by Cathy, 10 June 2014 - 04:47 AM.

[R Razor]

It's my hope that when CW finally drops, there will be some strategic level elements involved that will lead to exactly those kinds of battles....say in a house vs house conflict wherein a planet is lightly defended (4 - 6 mechs for instance) and the OPFOR gains intelligence indicating as much and decides to hit the planet with a company or battalion sized element.......this would bring at least some flavor of true warfare to the game.

[AssaultPig]

Assuming unbalanced teams weren't allowed, BV would likely exacerbate the problem we already have: a few so-called 'meta' builds dominating all matches. BV might even makes those builds more prevalent, since the more players were running them the quicker you'd find a match if you dropped in one yourself.

If you want to play 12 lights/mediums against four or five assault mechs maybe we're talking, but that isn't the game we have.

[anonymous161]

Sadly this topic is wasted on this company.

[X O]

Darth Bane001, on 10 June 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

Sadly this topic is wasted on this company.

Why? Because they don't follow your opinion?
I think most of the comments following the commen sense. BV is very hard to implement without any flaws or exploids. You need to calulate a lot of values and so on.
The benefit does not worth the effort.

[Zerberoff]

Darth Bane001, on 10 June 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

Sadly this topic is wasted on this company.

and we can be happy about that.
There wouldnt be any MW title at all if they listen to every crap on the forum.

[Robert blackseven Sohn]

R Razor, on 10 June 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:

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........

I actually sort of agree with the second part I quoted, with the caveat that I see implementing BV into MWO as a herculean task that is not worth the effort at this point in time. I'd rather see collisions come back, and other stuff that was promised. Remember, BV in tabletop took YEARS of work to complete, and it went through 3 iterations (counting CV).

Stop misquoting me and attributing to me positions I didn't espouse. My original post was an objection to the idea that since "World of Tanks has BV" (actually false), "Warthunder has BV", therefore it should be trivial for MWO to have BV. It's kind of like saying "well the Wright Brothers made that plane they used at Kitty Hawk, so you should be able to build that P-51 just as easily." Yes, I think private people could, given enough time, custom machine all the parts needed for a Mustang (notice I didn't choose a plane I thought impossible), but it's still going to be lot harder than making a facsimile Wright Brothers' contraption.

Cathy, on 10 June 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

As an example take one chaos hero warrior and one unit of chaos knights the other side make them human halberdiers and or swordsmen and give them 5 times the Bv of the chaos side, and play a game of unlimited turns until extinction (killed or fleeof table) of one side.

For 40K use terminator squad and hero against gretchin

If the humans or gretchin win I'll know someone cheated.

I don't have the points in front of me, but if you gave me 5x points of Halberdiers or Gretchin, I'd bet on the latter! Maybe a little less so in 40k, because of no steadfast, but 5x points of Halberdiers should grind down Chaos Knights unless you roll a bad Break check. Step-Up, Horde, Steadfast, striking in two ranks all really changed that equation. (In prior editions, the Kinghts plus Hero would butcher 5x points of Halberdiers no questions.)

[Sprouticus]

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.

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...

Me.

The mechs I prefer to play are far from the meta standard, and I play them because I do better in them than meta and because I feel like they are more fun.

In a pure BV respect they would be quite valuable because I can get more out of a low BV medium than a meta medium and thus provide more BV to the rest of the team, giving myself a greater chance to win.

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.

I am not sure what Elo you play in, but in the mid and low tier Elo's the meta builds make up MAYBE 20% of the players. I see lasers, AC's LRM's,mg's, and yes, PPC/AC5 combos. All kinds of builds, many suboptimal.

[van Uber]

Robert blackseven Sohn, on 10 June 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:

Remember, BV in tabletop took YEARS of work to complete, and it went through 3 iterations (counting CV).

And this is part of the issue, it took years to complete in TT. The balance in TT is, in comparison, very static. Balance in a game such as MWO is ever changing. By design. This alone disqualifies BV as a plausible feature for MWO.

[CeeKay Boques]

24 Players and their Scores
24 Chassis, their size and loadout...

Then, you have to mix those...

I'm feeling like a 5 minute wait time. Is SC balancing 24 players, 24 different ships in 4 different classes of chassis with 3 classes of weapons with their various abilities and electronics?

Mechwarrior is a bit of specialty case, that's why you geniuses like it.

[Wingbreaker]

R Razor, on 10 June 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

Which is the reason that BV has to be balanced against common sense on the part of the folks selecting their respective mechs..........you can't eliminate the human element nor can you eliminate the human tendency to stupidity in groups.

If we need 'common sense' in addition to BV, why are we bothering with BV? Clearly it isnt doing its job if it needs additional help to enact what it is supposed to do.

The idea behind a BV system is that it is objective, and does not require further refereeing from outside sources.

If it is clearly proven incapable of doing that, why bother?

Edited by Wingbreaker, 10 June 2014 - 05:26 AM.

[3rdworld]

In a perfect world, a BV system wouldn't be needed for MWO.

In a Paul Balanced World, we need a bv system, because he has continually shown to be incapable of balancing weapons, and chassis viability is still as bad as it ever was.

[Vandul]

Perhaps instead of using the TT version, they should examine the BPV used in Star Fleet Battles.

[Belorion]

I have no way to play SC so I can't say one way or the other if their system is in any way adaptable to MWO (My guess is it isn't)

I have long supported a BV like system for MWO, but we can't use the games system directly. Note this would not supplant ELO but rather augment it. Remember there was always a pilot rating component to BV.

[Lily from animove]

elo in thery works, but in real it also fails.
And Star citizen? How many practical matces have poeple played there to see if that "battle values" theory is working?

wouldn't elo reflect the same? someone in a stronger mech would then also score higher in elo easily, so by this they would, if elo works correctly, get ptoper opposition.

[CeeKay Boques]

Oh this is only speculation? Looks like its only against bots right now. Cool beans, this whole forum is speculation.

[Almond Brown]

Vassago Rain, on 09 June 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Vaporware implies it doesn't exist.

Good point. So SC should currently be called "Arena Commander" and is an arcade-style space shooter game? OK. Go it.