772 replies to this topic

[VortexD]

No love for the Thor / Summoner is unacceptable....

[Fire for Effect]

Void Angel, on 02 November 2015 - 07:13 PM, said:

This statement is wrong, because it contradicts itself and thus cannot be true. If you can always even out the sides, then not using the methodologies which you prefer in order to do so cannot automatically be a "fail decision."

It's also factually incorrect: balancing the tech bases against each other is a perfectly viable alternative. It's certainly far more sustainable and newbie-friendly than giants-versus-pygmies asymmetrical matches, or arcane floating BattleValue 'mech rating systems.

It is not viable alternative because it is simply not possible without breaking the basic superiority of the clans. You cannot make things identical by force that simply are not the same...

and where exactly does it contracdict itself? which part of the statement? I am not a wordsmith so bear with me...

BV is not arcane its the only thing that can even remotely work because it is based on something that is exact:
mathematics,
what you do with the assets at your disposal is an entirely different thing...

[Inkarnus]

Daitarn4, on 14 November 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

CASH SHOP REBALANCE for STEAM, i don't see any MECH REBALANCE.
No modification of the game or improvement.

IS vs CLAN is a good topic to distract the community.
Clan or IS we all play this game.

I agree to buy and invest in the mech game if he shows seriousness and a political game / commercial serious and long lasting. Start over and throw 99% of the time and money spent are the little things that make games eating money of mobile phones.

This is Sad.

^

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 02 November 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

PGi said something to the effect that the player base is too small to balance via teams.

And it would be a nightmare for MM.

so?

then make the teams smaller or even make the number of players variable... and it would be actually easier for the MM since it only needs to add a single number per player... and even the combined number for both sides...

Edited by Fire for Effect, 20 November 2015 - 07:28 AM.

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 02 November 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

Yeah. Not enough players.

This idea has been discussed before. PGI has no interest in juking MM to have a 'BV' balance system that puts few Clan Players vs more IS players.

And also, this game heavily favors numbers, hence the snowball effect of stomps.

For it to work, IS mehs would have to take SHS and No Endo, no XL engines.

Players wont to that except the very few who want Stock Mode...which can be done in a private lobby anyhow.

Bottom line: PGI said they wont have un-even numbers of players per team.

As said before that is their problem then, if they dont want to go the only viable path then they will be in an endless loop of requirking and doing weird weapon "adjustments" that waste resources instead of creating new assets and content.
You cannot force equality on things that are fundamentally different.

We already have uneven numbers of players on both sides; in many matches are non performers that are being destroyed as one of the last 3 mechs and still have done less than 100 damage and also did not contribute in any useful fashion no scouting no uav no nothing. Not much of a problem unless only one side has pilots like that.
With combined BV times pilot skill for each side that is at least better balanced.

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 02 November 2015 - 10:53 PM, said:

//quote start

Hypothetical:

You have a player base of 48 players. Enough for 2 matches of 12 vs 12. Problem is 25 drop clan.

BV fixes this how? Who has to wait. Which players own several mech of both tech? How many players only own Clan because ther are better?
How many players want to use IS mechs with SHS?

BV simply wont fix those problems, they really didnt for BT anyhow. How do you weight SHS vs Clan DHS in MWO?

You cant with BV cuz PGI doesnt have a metric and the BT metric wouldnt work either.

//Quote end



Why should BV be a problem? you simply add numbers.
SHS or DHS are simple numbers nothing else it is COMPLETELY unimportant what is in your mech you just get a different score, so it is a complete nonissue if you "wish" to drop with SHS or DHS.

In your example you simply make for each one in the queue a number
Mech BV times Pilot skill
of course a good player in an IS clunker can have a higher combined score than a mediocre player in a clan tin bucket...

Result is another number now you simply see how you can roughly even out both sides. simple elimination.... if one side has a mech more or less not much of a problem.


So you have a better alternative? I am eager to hear, something that can be INDEPEDENTLY tweaked of the mech because otherwise that would again result in an endless loop of fruitless requirking and weird weapon adjustments trying to equalize something that simply is not equal.

Balancing by Weight is complete nonsense as has been proven several times by now.
Balancing by Mech cost is also bogus since they have more or less randomly changed all prices
Balancing by Weight Class is absurd we dont even want to talk about it.

Not much left to balance on....

You need something to balance that :
-is independent of the general mech chassis or weight
-incorporates the actual loadout
-includes the skill of the pilot.

BV times pilot skill does all these things.

Edited by Fire for Effect, 20 November 2015 - 08:13 AM.

[Void Angel]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

It is not viable alternative because it is simply not possible without breaking the basic superiority of the clans. You cannot make things identical by force that simply are not the same...

and where exactly does it contracdict itself? which part of the statement? I am not a wordsmith so bear with me...

BV is not arcane its the only thing that can even remotely work because it is based on something that is exact:
mathematics,
what you do with the assets at your disposal is an entirely different thing...

Wow. First off, I explained exactly why your earlier statement was contradictory in the very quote you cited, and your post makes it very clear that you have simply ignored the context of my critique of "floating-point" BattleValue systems. This was a response to the insane idea that individual 'mechs have their BattleValue adjusted automatically based on how often they are used, to make meta mechs take up more space on the team. Perhaps if you would not simply skim posts for talking points?

Nor is BattleValue the panacea you claim: it was so flawed as to require at least one complete rework in tabletop, and it is impossible to simply port that system over here in any case. A static, non-'mech-based BattleValue will not account for hardpoint locations or 'mech geometry - so there, you have been proven factually incorrect. Tiime to revise your opinion.

But I know you won't, because of your foot-stamping insistence on having the game made your way, and the devil take alternatives! Your reasoning as to why PGI can't balance the tech bases together is childishly silly: you don't want it to happen, so it can't be done. Thus, the only way to balance is BattleValue! Congratulations, you are Mirror Universe Sherlock Holmes: "If we eliminate the undesirable, then whatever remains, no matter how unworkable, must be the truth!"

You do this with every objection raised to your scheme - hand-wave away alternatives, then insist that what you want is the only solution. I can sum up your entire position like this:

Edited by Void Angel, 20 November 2015 - 11:47 AM.

[InspectorG]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

so?

then make the teams smaller or even make the number of players variable... and it would be actually easier for the MM since it only needs to add a single number per player... and even the combined number for both sides...

I guess thats why they are testing 4 vs 4????

[InspectorG]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

We already have uneven numbers of players on both sides; in many matches are non performers that are being destroyed as one of the last 3 mechs and still have done less than 100 damage and also did not contribute in any useful fashion no scouting no uav no nothing. Not much of a problem unless only one side has pilots like that.
With combined BV times pilot skill for each side that is at least better balanced.

So you are saying internet problems and player behavior are PGI's fault???
Pretty unrealistic expectation?

And what keeps you from having those same problems in 12 IS vs 8 Clan?
What are the Clan players to do when they get 2 discos and have to start the match 12 vs 6????

Also fixing the underlying game balance is #1 priority.

More =/= Better. Go ask any engineer.

[InspectorG]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

BV times pilot skill does all these things.

And the metrics for BV and Pilot Skill?

BV is arbitrary, designed for TT with elements that arent even in MWO.

And besides, whats the benefit to take a low BV mech?

Pilot skill is just as nebulous.
Just how do you want to define a pilot's skill?

Skill with particular mechs? Maps? Modes? Solo? Group? CW? Favorite Weapon? Damage done? Kills?
Damage received? Damage tanked? Synergy with other players? Tactical prowess? Ability to carry?
Dedication to the game? Casual-ness?

How you gonna parse all that?

Your algo?

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

I guess thats why they are testing 4 vs 4????

they are testing 4 vs 4 because they can not scrape together enough people for PTS...

[InspectorG]

Paul Inouye, on 11 September 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Hello MechWarriors,

Hi Paul,

Since the Lazer-Lock thing didnt go over too well here is an idea for you concerning Infotech:

Revise the Crit system

Randomize/ bigger selection of drop zones/spawn points in Solo/Group and for Conquest have variable cap sites.

Then implement 'Lock=Crit, No Lock = No Crit'

T1 and T2 mechs(Timby / Thuds) would be just about radar-blind and could only lock nearest target.
T5 mechs(Spider-V) could get something like 130degree radar arc with 1200m range and hold several locks simultaneously.

Locks get you crit bonus damage which would have to be enough for comps not to ignore. Could also be used by veteran players to herd newbs along in a Solo drop, perhaps.

Not all my idea and credits are in the reddit post.

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

So you are saying internet problems and player behavior are PGI's fault???
Pretty unrealistic expectation?

And what keeps you from having those same problems in 12 IS vs 8 Clan?
What are the Clan players to do when they get 2 discos and have to start the match 12 vs 6????

Also fixing the underlying game balance is #1 priority.

More =/= Better. Go ask any engineer.

no I have said nothing about discos, I am talking about the massive difference in player quality that you have typically.

And that you simply cannot ignore pilot quality or the actual mech loadout if you wish balanced teams. And that is the only thing that counts: having equal teams on both sides.

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

And the metrics for BV and Pilot Skill?

BV is arbitrary, designed for TT with elements that arent even in MWO.

and?
you have number to start with... use em...

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

And besides, whats the benefit to take a low BV mech?

you seem to be unable unwilling to grasp that you are not required to take a low BV mech, you build a mech and then that one has a BV value.... evening out sides is independent of the actual mech that you take. It is dependent on your score which is pilot skill times BV of the actual built.

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

Pilot skill is just as nebulous.
Just how do you want to define a pilot's skill?

Skill with particular mechs? Maps? Modes? Solo? Group? CW? Favorite Weapon? Damage done? Kills?
Damage received? Damage tanked? Synergy with other players? Tactical prowess? Ability to carry?
Dedication to the game? Casual-ness?

How you gonna parse all that?

Your algo?

very easy you have that nice number below your avatar. that is just your bucket from Green to Elite....
Rest you can look up in your friendly mecenary handbook for example... there is a new test version of the merc handbook right now looks nicely done by the way...

[InspectorG]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

they are testing 4 vs 4 because they can not scrape together enough people for PTS...

I thought it had to do with a new game mode, 4 v 4 recon for CW.

[InspectorG]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

you seem to be unable unwilling to grasp that you are not required to take a low BV mech, you build a mech and then that one has a BV value.... evening out sides is independent of the actual mech that you take. It is dependent on your score which is pilot skill times BV of the actual built.





very easy you have that nice number below your avatar. that is just your bucket from Green to Elite....
Rest you can look up in your friendly mecenary handbook for example... there is a new test version of the merc handbook right now looks nicely done by the way...

You dont understand BT =/= MWO.
So you want to use BV from BT...that uses stock loadouts to balance MM??
I want whatever the hell you are smoking, that must be great stuff.

Yeah, you arent 'Required' to take a low BV mech. But in BT, low BV mechs were a strategy, or sometimes Lore based, that could be used.

Enemy has 1 Atlas with an average pilot, I take a several Locusts.
How many Locusts do i get to equal that Atlas?
How will MM balance that?

If you were paying attention to the people who deciphered the PSR rating, that 'number below my Avatar' is more indication of how many matches ive played, less indicative of my skill.
So you are saying people who play more MWO should be weighed more heavily in MM? Thats not an indication of skill.

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 02:26 PM, said:

I thought it had to do with a new game mode, 4 v 4 recon for CW.

would be nice but it seems thats the only way to get matches started -.-
have heard nothing about that mode for quite some time by the way...

[Fire for Effect]

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

You dont understand BT =/= MWO.
So you want to use BV from BT...that uses stock loadouts to balance MM??
I want whatever the hell you are smoking, that must be great stuff.

I think you think that only the BT BV parts are parts of that BV that is used for team balancing.... nope it is not but even if you would do that it would still be better than balancing on weight...

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

Yeah, you arent 'Required' to take a low BV mech. But in BT, low BV mechs were a strategy, or sometimes Lore based, that could be used.

Enemy has 1 Atlas with an average pilot, I take a several Locusts.
How many Locusts do i get to equal that Atlas?
How will MM balance that?

you are omitting the skill part; a mechs combat potential is only part of the MM process.
those many low BV vs high BV mechs matches were often fun by the way

InspectorG, on 20 November 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

If you were paying attention to the people who deciphered the PSR rating, that 'number below my Avatar' is more indication of how many matches ive played, less indicative of my skill.
So you are saying people who play more MWO should be weighed more heavily in MM? Thats not an indication of skill.

oh I know that, but if you think its not enough, you can easily expand that to your recorded hit stats for each weapon in your mech. But even the basic tier will be enough. I also think if you played 10000+ matches than it can be assumed that you know the basic stuff of that game...

[Fire for Effect]

Void Angel, on 20 November 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Wow. First off, I explained exactly why your earlier statement was contradictory in the very quote you cited, and your post makes it very clear that you have simply ignored the context of my critique of "floating-point" BattleValue systems. This was a response to the insane idea that individual 'mechs have their BattleValue adjusted automatically based on how often they are used, to make meta mechs take up more space on the team. Perhaps if you would not simply skim posts for talking points?

Oh that Idea; that was some time ago and yes of course you can penalize popular builts with an extra BV penalty. And yes of course you can automize that, but that would be a next step... of course you can make it selfadjusting it just could count builts and those that are most often used just get the highest number that would be very simple but would need many many iterations (much time and switches in the player base between builts) to get a desirble result.

Void Angel, on 20 November 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Nor is BattleValue the panacea you claim: it was so flawed as to require at least one complete rework in tabletop, and it is impossible to simply port that system over here in any case. A static, non-'mech-based BattleValue will not account for hardpoint locations or 'mech geometry - so there, you have been proven factually incorrect. Tiime to revise your opinion.

Who said that hardpoint position, mech size and hitbox layout (!) are not part of BV? Noone said that you only add the individual components and thats it, no hardpoint position, hitboxes ect are of course part of Bv too.
I am happy to see that you know greek mythology.

BV is also only part of the score you take for balancing the teams. BV was never completely trashed and redone, even the first try "combat value" was not vastly different, it was rather an evolutionary step instead of a complete new revolutionary step. BV incorporated more factors that were not part of combat value. But even in its first iteration CV was vastly better than weight based matches.

Void Angel, on 20 November 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

But I know you won't, because of your foot-stamping insistence on having the game made your way, and the devil take alternatives! Your reasoning as to why PGI can't balance the tech bases together is childishly silly: you don't want it to happen, so it can't be done. Thus, the only way to balance is BattleValue! Congratulations, you are Mirror Universe Sherlock Holmes: "If we eliminate the undesirable, then whatever remains, no matter how unworkable, must be the truth!"

You do this with every objection raised to your scheme - hand-wave away alternatives, then insist that what you want is the only solution. I can sum up your entire position like this:

Concerning the balance of course it cannot be balanced in itself. if you balance a Clan ERML and an ISML by making em equal then there is no difference in these; which makes em redundent. So you can get only close; if these are different you have to acknowledge that these have different impact on the battlefield. So consequently you have to treat mechs different that have the former or the latter as main weaponry no matter if these have the same weight.

Clan and IS equipment are vastly different in their performance, trying to balance the equipment to perform equally means that you have to dumb down clan equipment massively. If you dumb it enough down to make it equal then it will be functionally equal to the IS stuff, which makes the clan stuff more of less colorful versions of IS stuff. Hard to believe anyone wants that.

And even if you have succeeded in that you still have no equal teams, so you tinkered at the wrong part of the engine from the very start.


My reasoning is simply they are turning k.nobs back and forth that simply have not the desired effect, and simply cannot have the desired effect because they completely ignore the underlying problems. And most of the time they completely ignore the only tool that can bring balance: mathematics. Since Russ has taken over they more often used mathematical tool to compare and balance things (see Lasers) but they stopped half way towards their goal. They are still unable to split combat power from simple weight, which will result in an impossibility of balance since its damage dealing and soaking ability and not weight that determines combat potential.

So where are you alternatives? i am eager to hear. You will surely agree that weight class or weight based balance is simply nonsense. You are definitely not dumb, people who know the greek goddess of healing plants have some knowledge, so what is your alternative?

I say they tried matching mechs instead of equalizing teams and did use weight instead of a score independent of the mech weight and it did not work for 3 years. So use BV and the pilot skill.

Both can be decribed as mathemetical numbers and mathematics is your ONLY chance to archive balance.
Balancing mechs is a nice pastime but besides the point since what use has that, if the teams are not equal after all that time and effort?


Whatever you do, you need to incorperate pilot skill and actual built that is driven for each player. and you need to equalize that for both sides.

Can that result in 10 vs 12? yes of course and? what is the problem in that?

[Void Angel]

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

Who said that hardpoint position, mech size and hitbox layout (!) are not part of BV?

You did:

Fire for Effect, on 20 November 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

So you have a better alternative? I am eager to hear, something that can be INDEPEDENTLY tweaked of the mech because otherwise that would again result in an endless loop of fruitless requirking and weird weapon adjustments trying to equalize something that simply is not equal.

You can't even keep up with your own arguments, here. You just keep on following the same tired formula:

• Step One: Claim that the system which you want is the only one that will work
  
• Step Two: Respond to objections, claiming that your system is perfectly feasible and their objections aren't valid, because reasons.
  
• Step Three: Claim to be eager to hear alternatives.
  
• Step Four: Return to Step One, and repeat until everyone dies of old age.
  
• Step Five: Profit!

The mythology of BattleValue has been debated - and debunked - ad nauseum. Proponents of this system - or other changes and real or imagined fixes to real or imagined game problems - often seem to just start up the argument again periodically in the hopes that people will have forgotten all the objections they used the last time.


Sorry - no such luck.

Edited by Void Angel, 22 November 2015 - 08:02 AM.