64 replies to this topic

[Procyon Alpha]

So far we have went to 4x3 and yet there is still no real balance in this game. Why can we not have BV in this game. Who cares if some drops may be 8 v 11 at least the load outs and will be some what balanced. You don't need to worry about the clan 10 v IS 12 it will resolve itself. Oh I know the meta boys will be all up in arms but it will be a better product as a whole. It would stop a lot of we need to nerf this or that. A lot of meta min max builds will either stay and have a smaller force or we will see units conforming to some more interesting role based builds.

I just see that being a lot easier than saying that the clan weapons need to be normalized more. Yeah they can take a TBR but the other side for the points can have 2 Assaults for the cost depending on the build. I am sure a new type of meta will develop but there will be fewer mechs that are worthless. In the end does everyone want most of their mechs worth playing?

[Damien Tokala]

uhh... BV?

[Kilo 40]

what the hell is "BV"?

[Xtrekker]

Battle Value

[Egomane]

BV = BattleValue

A numerical system implemented to balance the tabletop game. It applies values to things like movement, excess heat, amount of ammunition and more. It's easy to manipulate and I therefore believe it's not a good choice for a mechwarrior game.

[Procyon Alpha]

How are you going to manipulate it when it is set to each item installed. It's a value system that works a hell of a lot better than tonnage or this 4x3 system that is broken all to hell.

[Procyon Alpha]

So what is PGIs fix for this if not a system that would give some normalization and make some mechs useful again? So far the game just keeps making mech obsolete are a breakneck pace. PGI could come up with it own value system, it would not take that much time and as far as manipulation so far just look at the Meta because that is all it is. If something is not done CW is as good as dead. Even 10 v 12 may not work in a lot of cases. Ever clan CW team is going to take min max TBRs and that right there makes up for the 2 extra mechs the IS gets on an average basis. So clan are going to be losing 2 light mechs to make it 10 v 12 they still have a great advantage in the match.

So what is the great solution. Continuing down this road as is, should not be a solution due to lack of vision. But if you wish to burry your head in the sand, I guess to each his own. We will be in the same place that ECM is and no one will ever do anything about it. That is just a sad situation

[Egomane]

Yeshua Kerensky, on 29 August 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

How are you going to manipulate it when it is set to each item installed. It's a value system that works a hell of a lot better than tonnage or this 4x3 system that is broken all to hell.

Because it gives bonuses and penalties for heat efficiancy. A bad heat efficiancy lowers the BV. If you carry a lot of ammo, it lowers the BV, if you reduce your speed, it lowers the BV. If you have a low range with most of your weapons, it lowers the BV. And that's only the obvious ways to manipulate it. It's not fixed values.

I have played the tabletop a long time. I have gone through all the iterations of balance attempts. Be they tonnage, numbers, combat value, battlevalue or battlevalue 2.0. They were all easily manipulable. They all come with preferable designs that are simply better then another build of the same value. As soon as you can build the mechs yourself, like we can do in MWO, it only gets worse.

Yeshua Kerensky, on 29 August 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

PGI could come up with it own value system, it would not take that much time and as far as manipulation so far just look at the Meta because that is all it is.

It would just add another layer to the meta, it would not solve it.

Edited by Egomane, 29 August 2014 - 11:32 PM.

[Procyon Alpha]

So no solution set right. Yeah this is not TT and not even Cannon, but there needs to be something in place this is getting stupid. It actually strips some meta and brings a semblance of order to the game. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture. Preconceived ideas of BV from table TT is not a good start, but statical data and logic should dictate a numerical value given to each component and chassis would put most values within a desirable curve compared to the sharp contrast that we are now facing.

So you are saying the road we are going down at this time is far superior, to any other system? If not please suggest another system.

[Egomane]

Yeshua Kerensky, on 29 August 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

So you are saying the road we are going down at this time is far superior, to any other system? If not please suggest another system.

I'm not saying it is "far superior". I'm saying that BV or whatever else you take as a system will not change a thing. At best it will switch a few thing around, but it will not take long until someone suggests the next system to be implemented to adjust balance. It only gets more and more complicated without helping.

Edited by Egomane, 29 August 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[van Uber]

Yeshua Kerensky, on 29 August 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

So you are saying the road we are going down at this time is far superior, to any other system? If not please suggest another system.

Do you know why BV 3.0 is in the making? Because the previous two were not good enough.

Adding another set of variables on top of the current values that dictate balance will not make it easier to get right. I'm all for more complex systems, but that applies to the players, not the developers.

[Kilo 40]

Egomane, on 29 August 2014 - 11:15 PM, said:

BV = BattleValue

A numerical system implemented to balance the tabletop game. It applies values to things like movement, excess heat, amount of ammunition and more. It's easy to manipulate and I therefore believe it's not a good choice for a mechwarrior game.

so like a points system like they use in Warhammer?

[Egomane]

Kilo 40, on 30 August 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:

so like a points system like they use in Warhammer?

I never played warhammer, but from how I understand it, it's similar if used for building your troops.

[van Uber]

Egomane, on 30 August 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

I never played warhammer, but from how I understand it, it's similar if used for building your troops.

Compared to Warhammer, it's more like building/equipping a hero than building an army.

[JoJoxy]

Why not have real time (or computed daily or whatever) Battlevalue?
Take the average kills, damage, win/loss, etc. for each chassis and apply the tournament scoring system to it.

Quote

Score Formula:
(Kills × 20) + (Kill Assist × 10) + ((Damage Done - Team Damage) ÷ 15) + (Wins × 20) + (Loss × 5)

Voilà, now you have a normalized score based on which you can determine the effectiveness of any chassis.

Edited by JoJoxy, 30 August 2014 - 02:08 AM.

[Aresye]

JoJoxy, on 30 August 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

Why not have real time (or computed daily or whatever) Battlevalue?
Take the average kills, damage, win/loss, etc. for any chassis and apply the tournament scoring system to it.



Voilà, now you have a normalized score based on which you can determine the effectiveness of any chasis.

That's...actually not a bad idea.

For example, we know the Clan Heavy bracket is most certainly, without a doubt, Timberwolves, with an average score of 2654. We can also fairly assume the IS Assault bracket is mostly Victors, with an average score of 2374.

Taking these in account in an IS vs Clan scenario, if one team has 3 Timberwolves, the other team would have 3 Victors.

Obviously the devs have more tools for analysis. I'm sure they could find a way to implement some sort of chassis vs chassis performance comparison into matchmaking logic, and it would be much more effective than tonnage based matchmaking.

[John1352]

The game mechanics of MWO generally make a good light worth ~75% as much as an assault or heavy IMO. Many assaults are better with standard engines than they are with XL ones. It would become hard to actually put a performance based value on mechs.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Egomane, on 29 August 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Because it gives bonuses and penalties for heat efficiancy. A bad heat efficiancy lowers the BV. If you carry a lot of ammo, it lowers the BV, if you reduce your speed, it lowers the BV. If you have a low range with most of your weapons, it lowers the BV. And that's only the obvious ways to manipulate it. It's not fixed values.

yea and PGI can not make their own numbers and statistics based on a milions of drops to implement their own Battle Value numbers right?

I think anything should be better than this **** which they call balanced matchmaking where 1 game out of 20 is different than 12-0/1/2/3 stomp...

Edited by JudgeDeathCZ, 30 August 2014 - 03:31 AM.

[Procyon Alpha]

Analytic math who would have thought there maybe some logic to it.

I am playing forum warrior it's the balanced MWO meta game.

Edited by Yeshua Kerensky, 30 August 2014 - 03:33 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

>we can't have a points value.
>no, a victor is totally comparable to an awesome.
>I don't understand why you're hating. 75 tons of orion totally ranks in as high as a madcat.
>It's the pilot, not the mech.
>you can't put a points value on my SKILL!
>no, it's too complicated.
>battle value was bad in CBT.
>but games shouldn't have points.
>3/3/3/3 will fix it.