125 replies to this topic

[Ragtag soldier]

because the queue is for playing a heavy mech is too damn high!

you know what this game needs? battlevalue. as much as you guys like to complaint that the strategy game rules aren't needed here, you can't balance battlemechs just by weight or numbers. all i take anymore are light mechs because if i take a heavy i feel like i'm just handicapping my team by taking a slot for one of the people that just plays the same meta timby or loki (or i guess cauldron born now) all the time and i've gotta wait in line for three times as long to do it!

this is just absurd, why should i even bother with half the mechs in my stable when my orion is being weighed evenly with a mad cat that's more than twice it's cost in battlevalue (and even more in c-bills!) and out perform it in every role except "training dummy"? the unfortunate fact is that matchmaking needs to figure out a way to balance matches so that high-value mechs are pitted against high-value mechs if they want any hope of even teams.

come on devs! work out a battlevalue system, make this game better for everyone so that players aren't going to get stomped on just because you can't keep the game balance even!

[FupDup]

The canyon-sized power gaps between the best and worst robbits is an issue with every weight class, not just heavies.

Edited by FupDup, 18 June 2015 - 08:09 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

so you suppose teams of different size based on some random 'battle value' number which will always be behind the meta

it would be.... well very very bad

[Aiden Skye]

I'm not having any problems getting drops at all even with the heavies up at 60%. Also your Orion is not that much cheaper than a Timberwolf after engine and heatsinks. Your idea is full of holes and will make the game quite boring. Best vs best or worst vs worst always? No thank you! I love hopping into my lowly mist Lynx which is like a tier zero mech and mixing it up and getting good games with it against stronger mechs. That would be impossible with what you are suggesting.

Edited by W A R K H A N, 18 June 2015 - 08:20 PM.

[DaZur]

"Hypothetically" I wonder if Patton ever complained about BV disparity when engaged in a discussion over battle with Rommel's Panzers?

Edited by DaZur, 18 June 2015 - 08:46 PM.

[Ragtag soldier]

DaZur, on 18 June 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

I wonder if Patton ever complained about BV disparity when engaged in battle with Rommel's Panzers?

considering rommel was off in africa for the thick of it, i somewhat doubt that came up.

[Alistair Winter]

[El Bandito]

DaZur, on 18 June 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

I wonder if Patton ever complained about BV disparity when engaged in battle with Rommel's Panzers?

Considering the fact the Allied tanks outnumbered Rommel's Panzers many times to one, I doubt Patton complained.

The total BV was overwhelmingly on the Allied side.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 June 2015 - 08:30 PM.

[DaZur]

Ragtag soldier, on 18 June 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:

considering rommel was off in africa for the thick of it, i somewhat doubt that came up.

I fixed it...

[Escef]

Ragtag soldier, on 18 June 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

you know what this game needs? battlevalue.

... Needs it like I need a hole in my head.

[Mystere]

If you think balancing by BV is going to be easier, then I guess you don't solve N-dimensional problems, with N > 100, daily.

[PhoenixFire55]

@OP. Blame the stupid 3/3/3/3 formula that somebody thought was a good idea. I remember times (back in CB) when we had half a dozen Atlases on each side going at each other and it was glorious. Same way there were crazy run-and-gun matches with ~12-16 lights, and it was still glorious.

Mystere, on 18 June 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

If you think balancing by BV is going to be easier, then I guess you don't solve N-dimensional problems, with N > 100, daily.

Ahem ... Elo - one value, BV - one value. Not quite sure wtf you are talking about. Assigning BVs to mechs is a different thing, not done by the MM (yes, it requires brains and yes PGI lacks brains).

As is, the simple thing to improve MM that can be easily made is to assign separate Elo scores for each variant in each chassis group instead of classes in general. This way not only the MM improves overall, but I can safely take a Highlander into a match without handicapping my team because Elo says that my HGL is supposed to do same damage as my DireOverlord. The starting Elo scores for the new variants you purchase can be the average of all your variants within the same class and so on ...

It is easy, it has been suggested a gazillion times and it does improve MM'ing. Shame PGI never cared about the quality of their product.

[Joseph Mallan]

PhoenixFire55, on 19 June 2015 - 01:22 AM, said:

@OP. Blame the stupid 3/3/3/3 formula that somebody thought was a good idea. I remember times (back in CB) when we had half a dozen Atlases on each side going at each other and it was glorious. Same way there were crazy run-and-gun matches with ~12-16 lights, and it was still glorious.



Ahem ... Elo - one value, BV - one value. Not quite sure wtf you are talking about. Assigning BVs to mechs is a different thing, not done by the MM (yes, it requires brains and yes PGI lacks brains).

As is, the simple thing to improve MM that can be easily made is to assign separate Elo scores for each variant in each chassis group instead of classes in general. This way not only the MM improves overall, but I can safely take a Highlander into a match without handicapping my team because Elo says that my HGL is supposed to do same damage as my DireOverlord. The starting Elo scores for the new variants you purchase can be the average of all your variants within the same class and so on ...

It is easy, it has been suggested a gazillion times and it does improve MM'ing. Shame PGI never cared about the quality of their product.

BV is very gameable. BV2 less so but still anyone with SOME math skill will find how to exploit any kind of BV system.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

common % i see all the time is

10+% ligths
10+% medium
50-60% heavy
20% assaults.


But yesterday i saw 78% heavy.... well....

[Joseph Mallan]

Titannium, on 19 June 2015 - 04:02 AM, said:

common % i see all the time is

10+% ligths
10+% medium
50-60% heavy
20% assaults.


But yesterday i saw 78% heavy.... well....

new heavy hotness with the Ebon Jag maybe!?!

[Rushin Roulette]

[Vandul]

Patton made the tankers take off the sandbag armor on the early Shermans. Tell me that wasnt a motivator.

MWO Player in a Centurion: kek. max amor.
MWO Patton: Cut it in half, or get a Colt to the face.

Oh, and Guderian was Pattons counterpart for most of the conflict in the ETO.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 June 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

new heavy hotness with the Ebon Jag maybe!?!

NERF.....

[Joseph Mallan]

Titannium, on 19 June 2015 - 04:11 AM, said:

NERF.....

Seyla!

[ice trey]

DaZur, on 18 June 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

"Hypothetically" I wonder if Patton ever complained about BV disparity when engaged in a discussion over battle with Rommel's Panzers?

In war, having overwhelming odds in your favor over the opposing side is something to strive after.
In a game, having overwhelming odds over the opposing side is called having a poorly designed game.

Ideally, anything you can take should be more or less on par with the next guy.
If only one or a small percentage of options are competitive, and the rest are considered "Junk", that's poor game design, and needs to be remedied.
The quirks are one way to go about it, but they're not being used to balance the game so much as force players to sell mechs that stop meeting the meta, and buy new ones that are the new meta.

Edited by ice trey, 19 June 2015 - 04:30 AM.