426 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Piloting and Gunnery skills could be made to replace ELO, however, if they remain game determined. The Gunnery skill would be relatively easy, as the percentages for weapon types used, hits, wins and losses is already recorded. The Piloting skill could be determined from things like taking damage from a fall to your legs, with or without jets would be different, of course, the number of matches you win as compared to what you lose, and if your Match wins improve over your losses, your Piloting could also get better. I'm sure there are other metrics that could be done.

However, with Battle Value, the greatest strength is in the 'Mech, the tool that's used, which is further enhanced by the Piloting/Gunnery levels of the pilot...if PGI would put in the BV system. The BV of each 'Mech, and its configuration, could be determined procedurally, as well... if a change is made, the BV is recalculated. The 'Mech you take into the match already has the BV, and the pilot's PS/GS modifies that number and throws it into a bucket with the rest of your team, to find a group within 10% of your teams total BV score. If you only have ten members, for example, in the same team, the other team has to fill up with a similar BV, and then the last four slots, two on each side, have to be pulled up like that. If a team ends up a 'Mech short, that's on them.

Oh, and gee... this would also help to balance out the Clans, automatically. The teams should be, roughly, a Star of Clan 'Mechs (5) versus two Lances of IS 'Mechs (8), but for BV calculations. So, the Clans would end up coming up short on numbers every single time, using Battle Value, like they should, anyway.

Oh, and that's not all!!! Elo holds each MechWarrior within a certain number, between 900 and 2300, and those numbers are added or averaged, whatever, and supposedly matched with the other team, right? Well, introduce Battle Value, and you can get rid of the artificial limitations, to have battles as small or as large as you want.

Will PGI do it? Only when they figure out the way things are done, now, are unsustainable, such as with today's Clan vs. IS testing after the Hotfix that's already supposed to be up. I read that whole thread, something I very rarely do with ANY thread, and it was reported ROFL-Stomp after ROFL-Stomp, in favor of the Clans. There is NOTHING PGI is going to be able to do with Elo and weight matching, and group age, to improve, or balance, the match maker and the teams put into it while they bullishly hang onto ELO. They NEED to go with a Battle Value system that recalculates outside of the game for changes, but is fixed inside the game, and then match everything using that single metric, instead of the four they presently use.

[IraqiWalker]

Usually the math is 2 stars versus a company (10v12)

[Threat Doc]

IraqiWalker, on 06 August 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Usually the math is 2 stars versus a company (10v12)

Not with Battle Value, first off, and usually that still wound up being a mudhole for any IS forces. The Clan 'Mechs are just entirely too powerful. Honestly, it was usually a Trinary of Clan 'Mechs vs. two Companies of Inner Sphere 'Mechs (15 v 24), and THAT usually came out a relatively even fight. However, a Binary vs. a Company... that's a slaughter.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

Not with Battle Value, first off, and usually that still wound up being a mudhole for any IS forces. The Clan 'Mechs are just entirely too powerful. Honestly, it was usually a Trinary of Clan 'Mechs vs. two Companies of Inner Sphere 'Mechs (15 v 24), and THAT usually came out a relatively even fight. However, a Binary vs. a Company... that's a slaughter.

See, you're going with the TT BVs, and usually those were 5 clan mechs against 8 IS stock mechs. Pre 3050 stock mechs to boot.

Yeah, for those, it should be 5v8. However, considering our IS mechs are custom variants, with second star league era tech, the BVs would favor 10v12, maybe even closer.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

An interesting discussion about Elo and BV above.

As I understand the way a 'mech's BV is computed, it's mostly a sum of values assigned to the various components of a 'mech.

It would not be too difficult to use a similar system for MWO, generated based on win-loss and/or kill-death statistics (probably a weighted formula taking kills, deaths, wins and damage done per match into account) for certain chassis, variants, and even different builds or possibly down to specific components ... and the weightings for this formula could be adjusted on the fly (like a player's Elo) as different combinations become demonstrably more or less effective due to changes in the game.

As long as these values remained hidden (so that they cannot be gamed and min-maxed), I have no problem with PGI implementing a system like this.

A player's contribution to BV could be similarly determined simply (piloting skill is probably most simply determined by survivability ... matches/deaths, gunnery by lethality ... kills/match, there might be a multiplier in there for effectiveness ... wins/match) or using something much more complex.

As it stands now ... while many people say that Elo doesn't measure a pilot's skill, I disagree. In the very long term, over hundreds of matches, I believe that it does ... It is primarily affected by your ability to build a viable 'mech, pilot that 'mech, and win (under many different circumstances affected by many different random factors -- which is why it could take hundreds of matches to get close to right).

[Threat Doc]

IraqiWalker, on 06 August 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

See, you're going with the TT BVs, and usually those were 5 clan mechs against 8 IS stock mechs. Pre 3050 stock mechs to boot.

Yeah, for those, it should be 5v8. However, considering our IS mechs are custom variants, with second star league era tech, the BVs would favor 10v12, maybe even closer.

Yes, but a dynamic Battle Value system, the way it's calculated in the lore mechanics, with values placed by PGI -what's good for the goose is good for the gander- would make those determinations within the game, and then you could match any kinds of 'Mechs against other kinds of 'Mechs, each team being within 10% -or less if that percentage is too broad- of the other team's total Battle Value, and even if you didn't have 12 on each team, or an even number of 'Mechs on each team, the BV numbers would still be closely matched. You're right, I did go with TT BVs, but only as an example of what could be done, here.

If PGI have, indeed, nerf'd the Clan 'Mechs down from their tabletop values, it would show up in the PGI built internal BV system, and everything would come out level, in the end, similar to the way it worked in Tabletop.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 06 August 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

As I understand the way a 'mech's BV is computed, it's mostly a sum of values assigned to the various components of a 'mech.

Kind of, but not really that simple. There is an offensive value, a defensive value, and basically a special abilities value, in the tabletop Battle Value 2 system, and it could easily be implemented, here, as well, I think.

Quote

It would not be too difficult to use a similar system for MWO, generated based on win-loss and/or kill-death statistics (probably a weighted formula taking kills, deaths, wins and damage done per match into account) for certain chassis, variants, and even different builds or possibly down to specific components ... and the weightings for this formula could be adjusted on the fly (like a player's Elo) as different combinations become demonstrably more or less effective due to changes in the game.

Exactly. Right now, four things are taken into account for the matchmaker: age of the group (how long the group's been in the matchmaker searching), composition of the group in the drop (2-10 man, plus other small groups and PUGs), the group's overall Elo, and 3/3/3/3, I think it is. The Matchmaker uses these four criteria to attempt to grab another group, initially, that fits closely with their profile.

As the search continues on, second-by-second, "relief valves" eventually come into play to begin loosening restrictions on each of those Matchmaker aspects. The longer the search continues, the more likely your group of players is to run into a group of either terribly inferior players on the other team, or terribly elite players. The mixture of Elo's becomes increasingly loose, each weight class from 3/3/3/3 might break down to allow increasingly out-of-whack versions of that, such as 4/3/3/1, or 3/5/2/2, etc. If you have a 7-man team, the Matchmaker is supposed to find another 7-man team for the other side, but as the relief valve opens, you could actually find yourself with your group of 7, plus a group of 3, and 2 PUGs facing a full 12-man.

When CW-Combat gets into the full swing of things in a couple of months, you're going to see faction buckets, where teams in the same faction will go up against other faction bucket teams of similar size and what-not, and the Matchmaker will be charged to find more teams or individuals within your faction bucket to go up against similar groups in the enemy faction bucket. Unfortunately, as the Matchmaker "relief valves" go to work finding these teams and individuals, those initial restrictions will be loosened all the same, so you may find five Assault 'Mechs and two Lights on each team, or a complete mismatch as the relief valves go fully open.

This is all a major problem, because you legitimately need ONE NUMBER PER 'MECH on a team to run the whole damned thing. Get behind-the-scenes calculated Battle Values, based on component-by-component workups, so even modules are taken into account, and have that number set in place when someone saves their 'Mech in the Lab, and then your Piloting and Gunnery skills are game-determined and modify the 'Mech's Battle Value the moment a pilot hits the Ready button. Once that element launches in-game, it sets off to find a group that will be within between 5 and 10% of the Battle Value of your team, and vice-versa, and voila you have your team.

It will work even better for planetary drops in CW, because then the element Commander's can negotiate the amount of Battle Value they want, total, just like selecting the length of time of a Private Match, now, as well as the map, and 'Mech selections... it would be one more thing they could do, and then the Commander's would be in charge, together, of how these drops work, just like in Tabletop. Battle Value is, far and away the better system to work within, than this Elo and 3/3/3/3 and team sizes and the amount of time a team has been in the Matchmaker queue.

Quote

As long as these values remained hidden (so that they cannot be gamed and min-maxed), I have no problem with PGI implementing a system like this.

{/me nods head emphatically and grins like an idiot}

Quote

A player's contribution to BV could be similarly determined simply (piloting skill is probably most simply determined by survivability ... matches/deaths, gunnery by lethality ... kills/match, there might be a multiplier in there for effectiveness ... wins/match) or using something much more complex.

Yes.

Quote

As it stands now ... while many people say that Elo doesn't measure a pilot's skill, I disagree. In the very long term, over hundreds of matches, I believe that it does ... It is primarily affected by your ability to build a viable 'mech, pilot that 'mech, and win (under many different circumstances affected by many different random factors -- which is why it could take hundreds of matches to get close to right).

Okay, I can agree with your assertions, and I think you're right in your definition. However, the game itself then throws the artificial limit of Elo into it, and your pilot is stuck in a closed system, where your skill has to fall within certain limits, rather than have ranges to help define, such as...

Anything below this level/number/percentage is a Green quality MechWarrior
Anything above this level/number/percentage is an Elite quality MechWarrior

Split what remains in-between Green and Elite in half...
From certain level/number/percentage just above Green to the halfway point is a Regular quality MechWarrior, and
From certian level/number/percentage just below Elite to the half way point is a Veteran quality MechWarrior.

Those ranges are adjustable based on how well players do, and the metrics PGI would use to determine those skill ratings. Elo is not adjustable based on anything, and that's where its downfall is.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

... However, the game itself then throws the artificial limit of Elo into it, and your pilot is stuck in a closed system, where your skill has to fall within certain limits, rather than have ranges to help define, such as...

Anything below this level/number/percentage is a Green quality MechWarrior
Anything above this level/number/percentage is an Elite quality MechWarrior

Split what remains in-between Green and Elite in half...
From certain level/number/percentage just above Green to the halfway point is a Regular quality MechWarrior, and
From certian level/number/percentage just below Elite to the half way point is a Veteran quality MechWarrior.
...

I'd really like to see something like this ... possibly more 20% green - 40% Regular - 30% Veteran - 10% Elite, but yeah, it would be nice to have some idea where you fall on the bell curve.

[Threat Doc]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 06 August 2014 - 11:11 PM, said:

I'd really like to see something like this ... possibly more 20% green - 40% Regular - 30% Veteran - 10% Elite, but yeah, it would be nice to have some idea where you fall on the bell curve.

Oh, I know. I think your percentages are correct, as well... that's about what I could easily see it as. I know I have a practice for how we determine the four MechWarrior qualities, so that actually makes our Elite more like 1%, and places Veteran's closer to 40%, like the Regular's. It's not a great system, and I'm getting ready to go over and double-check everything, perhaps for some time this coming weekend, but it's also not a bad system, right now. It's too easy to gain Gunnery achievements, and I'm thinking the experience points requirement for Green, Regular, and Veteran needs to be up'd a bit, but most of the awards are in good shape.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

Reasonable post

That would be interesting. The real fix in this case would be removing the restriction of a minimum of 12 players per team. That could help.

Also, I'm looking forward to the 10v12 tests they are doing soon.

[Cimarb]

Kay Wolf, on 05 August 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

And much to their own detriment, unfortunately. Perhaps, at the time, HG felt that Robotech was going to be a much larger property than it turned into. I dare say that BattleTech and, by extension, the MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault games have had much greater success than Robotech, by far.

Okay, so Palladium is doing Robotech as an RPG, a movie for it is in Development Hell, the Robotech: Tactics board game is in the works, and they're working on new books and a new cartoon, but that's no where close to the success FASA, and her successors, have had with BattleTech.

Honestly, HG, Big West, the Agrama and Tatsunoko folks, need to come off of this lawsuit garbage, and I think they would find a ground swell of new support from BattleTech fans.

If HG had just agreed to get 1% gratuity from profits made off of "similar" designs, they would be raking in the dough and everyone would be happy with them, instead of standing in line waiting to spit on their gravestones...

[GrizzlyViking]

1. The Mech Module slots should be 2+1=3 instead of 1+1=2. Or make them 2-2-2 and add an OMNI module slot that can accept any module type once the Mech is leveled up.

2. Consumables should be free. If there is no cost for reloading ammo, then consumables should also be free to reload.

3. Need customizable module tabs that can be renamed and the players should have the freedom to select the modules they choose for each tab. It would be helpful to be able to customize tabs by roles since most people use the same modules for certain roles they play.

4. The heat increase for most weapons modules is disproportionate to the amount of range gained. Either the heat should be reduced or the range should be increased.

Edited by GrizzlyViking, 08 August 2014 - 09:39 AM.

[Ovion]

I like that idea actually.

Make Airstrike / UAV / Artillery a regular module.
Cost 4mil, one-shot-per-match, 1000GXP unlock or something.
The MC only one make say, 750-1500MC, based off the same GXP unlock.

Maybe in addition to the current system.
So a perm unlock, or for the price of 100, a perm 'weapon'.

[Threat Doc]

Cimarb, on 08 August 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

If HG had just agreed to get 1% gratuity from profits made off of "similar" designs, they would be raking in the dough and everyone would be happy with them, instead of standing in line waiting to spit on their gravestones...

I have heard all manner of stories about the good and the evil that Harmony Gold did, in combination with Coleco, Studio Nue, Tatsunoko, Agrama, Big West, and the whole shebang, and I've hear all sorts of stories about what FASA did, and in this case, everyone was evil, and everyone was good. The facts that I can glean from all of these stories is that FASA should have kept its big mouth shut with regards to the Coleco toy line, and Harmony Gold did not have the rights to the artwork for Macross or Robotech in the United States. By vocal agreement, FASA had those rights from both studios for Crusher Joe and Fang of the Sun Dougram, but I guess that wasn't acceptable in court.

So, who gets screwed? The BattleTech and, further down the line, MechWarrior, players. Thanks, FASA and HG... I would have appreciated it more if you'd used Vaseline or K-Y.

[Cimarb]

Kay Wolf, on 08 August 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

I have heard all manner of stories about the good and the evil that Harmony Gold did, in combination with Coleco, Studio Nue, Tatsunoko, Agrama, Big West, and the whole shebang, and I've hear all sorts of stories about what FASA did, and in this case, everyone was evil, and everyone was good. The facts that I can glean from all of these stories is that FASA should have kept its big mouth shut with regards to the Coleco toy line, and Harmony Gold did not have the rights to the artwork for Macross or Robotech in the United States. By vocal agreement, FASA had those rights from both studios for Crusher Joe and Fang of the Sun Dougram, but I guess that wasn't acceptable in court.

So, who gets screwed? The BattleTech and, further down the line, MechWarrior, players. Thanks, FASA and HG... I would have appreciated it more if you'd used Vaseline or K-Y.

I agree HG was not the only one to blame originally, but they are the only ones still hanging on to the issue. They need to just get a gratuity out of those designs to make money positively, instead of alienating ever gamer that has even heard of them.

[wickedlegendz]

I realize it may not be quite the obvious answer nor the exact place for this but, it indirectly relates and you are always looking to improve the game and mechs but, it would seem to me that if clan mechs are viewed as OP even though I find that I don't have much trouble dropping them with my other IS mechs. The answer really isn't nerf the clan mechs until they are completely broken and virtually worthless so that IS mechs can deal with them. the answer is add to and work on the IS mechs. that would be like saying o well the model T car is slower in a race so lets make sure that all cars are just as slow. That wouldn't make much sense either. Nerfing a good product is not the answer. With the new quirks system you have the answer right there. The clan mechs are already semi broken as it is and getting worse. The reason clan mechs seem to be so OP is a mass of people who have been waiting for clan mechs since MW first started finally have them. A majority of the clan pilots are not your average or new players these are your elite above average Pilots and of those you have actually lost quite a few as things have gone sideways a bit since MWO first started. which is not to say there aren't many Elite IS pilots but... if you keep nerfing the mechs on one side you will eventually end up having to nerf the IS mechs as well. Simply build up the IS mechs a bit and fix the brokenness of the clan mechs that is starting to happen otherwise the end result in the future will be a broken game. Problem solved. This is sound advice from a player who has no only played over 25,000 games along with all of the MechWarrior games but, also has been playing video games Since the commodore 64. I have watched countless games fall into obscurity and fail. I have absolutely no desire to watch this one do so.

Sincerely,
A Wicked Legend

Edited by wickedlegendz, 08 August 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[GentlemanBryan]

I would like to have control over the beam duration. For example the longer I hold the fire button the longer the beam (the longer you hold the button the more heat you generate). I would also like to see repair stations in each map. If you receive a critical damage you can go to your repair station (these repair station can be destroyed)

[IraqiWalker]

MAVRICK64, on 09 August 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

I would like to have control over the beam duration. For example the longer I hold the fire button the longer the beam (the longer you hold the button the more heat you generate). I would also like to see repair stations in each map. If you receive a critical damage you can go to your repair station (these repair station can be destroyed)

The first idea might be fun, but it removes any downsides to using clan lasers.

The second idea I personally think should just not be implemented. If you think people are camping now, wait until they have a reason to keep running back to base every time they get a booboo.

Actually, you know what. Let's implement it, so I can use my air strike on the long line forming infront of that repair station.

[Ren Kurogane]

MAVRICK64, on 09 August 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

I would like to have control over the beam duration. For example the longer I hold the fire button the longer the beam (the longer you hold the button the more heat you generate). I would also like to see repair stations in each map. If you receive a critical damage you can go to your repair station (these repair station can be destroyed)

IraqiWalker, on 09 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

The first idea might be fun, but it removes any downsides to using clan lasers.

The second idea I personally think should just not be implemented. If you think people are camping now, wait until they have a reason to keep running back to base every time they get a booboo.

Actually, you know what. Let's implement it, so I can use my air strike on the long line forming infront of that repair station.

what if lasers act like:
1. hold button to fire, the longer you hold, the more heat generated
2. to do full damage, you need at least <insert laser duration here> secs to any location
3. after releasing the button, you'll need <insert cooldown duration here> secs to fire it again

and these repair stations act like:
1. can only repair 1 mech at a time
2. can only repair mech when the "healthpoints" are 50% or below
3. can only repair mech to, say, 75-80%
4. after repairing a mech, need <insert cooldown duration here> secs to make preparation for the next repair

[IraqiWalker]

Discarius, on 09 August 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

what if lasers act like:
1. hold button to fire, the longer you hold, the more heat generated
2. to do full damage, you need at least <insert laser duration here> secs to any location
3. after releasing the button, you'll need <insert cooldown duration here> secs to fire it again

Still removes any downside to using clan lasers, in fact, it will make them even better since they generate better damage per heat.

The biggest balancing factor for them has been the long burn time. Remove that, and there's no downside to using them.

Discarius, on 09 August 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

and these repair stations act like:
1. can only repair 1 mech at a time
2. can only repair mech when the "healthpoints" are 50% or below
3. can only repair mech to, say, 75-80%
4. after repairing a mech, need <insert cooldown duration here> secs to make preparation for the next repair

Then you'll have teammates fighting over who get to repair first, and you will have the long queue just waiting for my light mech to slap an air strike or arty strike on them.

[Ren Kurogane]

IraqiWalker, on 09 August 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

Still removes any downside to using clan lasers, in fact, it will make them even better since they generate better damage per heat.

The biggest balancing factor for them has been the long burn time. Remove that, and there's no downside to using them.



Then you'll have teammates fighting over who get to repair first, and you will have the long queue just waiting for my light mech to slap an air strike or arty strike on them.

make it so the heat generated per damage from clan is in line with IS, so we have:
1. IS, shorter beam duration to reach max damage, shorter range
2. Clan, longer beam duration to reach max damage, longer range

and...for the repair stations...yeah, if there're only people who cares about themselves, you'll get a long queue and fight each other to just get repaired...but then again, it will also forced people to at least communicate each other and/or read the situation. What if they also make it only 1 repair can be performed for each mech and place it far enough from battle point?