77 replies to this topic

[MoonUnitBeta]

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/

Quote

8)Ship balance inside Arena Commander:

• By design,not all ships will be as good in combat as others,which works for the PU.However AC is all about the dogfighting.They will probably use a Point System like in Warhammer 40k.Basic idea floating around "and please don't quote me on the forums or Reddit with this" is that an Aurora would for example be worth one point (speculative) and the Hornet 4 points (speculative).If you kit it out with extra weapons it get bumped up to 6 points (speculative).The matchmaker then takes the available ships in the queue and makes a balanced match where both teams have the same amount of total points.

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).

Quote

-Another point that comes from this is that all ships must be made fun to play regardless of brute strength."It's like bot lane support in League of Legends,you have to make it fun or not enough people will play it".They are thinking about different game modes that incentives secondary (support) roles Mentions "Ferry the Cargo" game mode as a possibility:Centralized cargo depot that you have to capture,that has 10.000 metric tons of cargo.Suddenly a having a Freelancer that's protected by Hornets becomes a viable game mechanic,whereas normally people would just gravitate to just Hornets.

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.

[MonkeyCheese]

eh, still a vaporware game till it actually comes out...

[Vassago Rain]

MonkeyCheese, on 09 June 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

eh, still a vaporware game till it actually comes out...

Vaporware implies it doesn't exist.

[Clint Steel]

Well AC is out now, but not the multiplayer part yet, and the balancing/matchmaking won't hit to later anyway, so though their intent is good, can't say if the implementation will work as planned.

I do feel 3x4 is a very simplistic way of balancing, but could they even get pug matches to add up battle value, if they couldn't get 3x4 to work? If they could I would like to see it.

[Sephlock]

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

Vaporware implies it doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist until they admit that Hobbes is an honest and noble warrior who never ever betrayed anyone, damn it!

(Except his own people,once ).

Edited by Sephlock, 09 June 2014 - 06:43 PM.

[MonkeyCheese]

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

Vaporware implies it doesn't exist.

im my eyes it dosnt till it is at least somewhat playable not just separate "modules", and in mwos defence it was playable that day i got into closed beta.

[Sephlock]

MonkeyCheese, on 09 June 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

im my eyes it dosnt till it is at least somewhat playable not just separate "modules", and in mwos defence it was playable that day i got into closed beta.

And it has stayed that way ever since.

I mean it has stayed THAT WAY, not that it has stayed playable .

[Vassago Rain]

MonkeyCheese, on 09 June 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

im my eyes it dosnt till it is at least somewhat playable not just separate "modules", and in mwos defence it was playable that day i got into closed beta.

But it's playable right now. I spent a couple hours shooting aliens and screwing with the physics yesterday.

[Spike Brave]

Comparing an existing game to a game in concept isn't exactly apples to apples.

[Vassago Rain]

Spike Brave, on 09 June 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

Comparing an existing game to a game in concept isn't exactly apples to apples.

inb4 in concept, alpha module SC has comparable content to MWO

[MonkeyCheese]

Sephlock, on 09 June 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

And it has stayed that way ever since.

I mean it has stayed THAT WAY, not that it has stayed playable .

Not in anyway arguing against you there, Outside of turrets and speedcaps it still feels the same (well no knockdowns was a big change), but I am still having fun while waiting for CW so whatever.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Yeah. Hello.

This thread isn't about Arena commander or Star Citizen, it's about battle value, pro's and cons, and future game modes you'd like to see. It's mainly a survey, if you read the title, the main quotes are to give it context and reason for this thread's creation.

You can use Arena Commander / Star Citizen as examples and/or used to support your discussion, but please do not discuss strictly about Arena Commander or Star Citizen. There's many avenues you can use to discuss that.

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.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 09 June 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

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

@MUB

ELO only works when you have fields of players ie 1000-1400 elo fill all the slots

what pgi does is team = 700 composition - 2000-250 players. this in theory means pools can be created quicker and a larger demographic can be catered for, in reality you get the matches we've seen for a year, first derps to be killed determines the whole match.

BV is much more complex but if done it would create more equal matches... now we're talking about pgi building it. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL etc

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 09 June 2014 - 07:14 PM.

[Khobai]

MWO should have battle value. Period.

ELO. 3/3/3/3. Tonnage matchmaking. None of that balances the guy in his boar's head with 6 flamers. All those matchmaking methods make the false assumption that everyone is bringing their very best meta builds.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Khobai, on 09 June 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

MWO should have battle value. Period.

Translation:

Khobai, on 09 June 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

MWO should have a "balance" mechanic that put the stock Urbanmech miles over any Clan tech.

Because that totally makes sense.


If you doubt me - go start a game - give yourself equal BV Urbanmechs (supposedly one of the worst light mech desings ever) and Timberwolves (supposedly the best of the best of the best - The single most efficient machine TT had, right?)

Urban environment (because where else are you going to find Urbies?)


See how many of the Urbies the TW take down before they fall.


On the flip side of course is those Alpine Peaks maps - but go and see just how "balanced" BV actually was.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 09 June 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

MWO should have a "balance" mechanic that put the stock Urbanmech miles over any Clan tech.

We wouldnt use TT battle values though. Obviously we cant since clan mechs were nerfed heavily in MWO.

[Egomane]

Different games, need different ways for match calculations.

Star Citizen has a lot more variancy in ship sizes and armament then MWO. If you wanted to do a matchmaking like MWO with Elo for classes, they would need a lot more Elo values then MWO (for example: Light Fighters, Medium Fighters, Heavy Fighters, Light Transports, Medium Transports, Heavy Transports, Light Bomber, Heavy Bomber, Corvette, Frigatte, Destroyer, Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier). It would also be near impossible to calculate multi-crew ships with Elo.

[Sidekick]

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.

[Slepnir]

In battletech BV exists already for every mech , every weapon and every mech system. it's there if PGI chooses to use it and toss out the horrible ELO system.

[Octavian]

Khobai, on 09 June 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

We wouldnt use TT battle values though. Obviously we cant since clan mechs were nerfed heavily in MWO.

not to mention, TT bv is considered broken even by the company that publishes the rule books