772 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

Vermaxx, on 22 February 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

Can you explain to me the reasoning behind taking the most controversial setting for Battletech, and not wanting the overpowered theme for clans?

Because I really don't get it. You could have made a relatively amazing game without the clan crap, because you wouldn't have seen the massive power ramp from XL engines and lostech everything.

Battletech 3025 was about as balanced as Battletech got. Everyone had access to the same crap, and it was all crap but no one knew there was anything better.

All along the roadmap, you've implemented lostech changes and then seen things you didn't like:

XL engines caused a massive ramp in power base and lowered time to kill for various reasons
Lots of people hated gauss
Boat builds became both common and preferable
The combo of DHS and XL engines totally borked your idea of gameplay and heat generation
Clan mechs were too powerful, highly overbalancing a game that already had issues
CW was heavily slanted toward clan both because of tech and the intended player base
CW rebalancing shifted the win ration far the other way - to IS - rather than toward 50/50

You can't have a game steeped in the lore of FASA, where the clans were a brutal overpowering enemy only beaten by underhanded trickery and MASSIVE ATTRITION, and then expect to balance those two factions even steven.


Because you wouldn't have even teams, or even lives, or you'd have some kind of serious penalty for being un-clan. (Oh sure, some ignored zelbregen. Most didn't, and most didn't START ignoring it until the war had already seen some diabolical IS bs.) Whereas I, in my Liao pride, could do any heinous thing I wanted and get no penalties for it.

This is a 12 v 12 PvP game. So there should be balance between the teams. The day we can get uneven teams, and specialized ammo, and melee combat, for the IS, is the day I'll be first in line to campaign for clan mechs to get buffed to "I WIN" levels.

[iippo]

Vermaxx, on 22 February 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

You can't have a game steeped in the lore of FASA, where the clans were a brutal overpowering enemy only beaten by underhanded trickery and MASSIVE ATTRITION, and then expect to balance those two factions even steven.

i dont really know what im talking about, but wouldnt obvious change be to make the clan mechs OP and at the same time give IS few extra players and tonnage for CW?

[SilentScreamer]

iippo, on 21 March 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

i dont really know what im talking about, but wouldnt obvious change be to make the clan mechs OP and at the same time give IS few extra players and tonnage for CW?

Has PGI really play tested Clan mechs VS the I.S. mechs with differing number of players per side since Clan Wave 1 balancing?
Say for example 2 Stars ( 10 clan mechs total) VS 3 lances ( 12 I.S. mechs total). I am pretty sure the answer is no.

Even if PGI did take a look at balancing the number of pilots/mechs on each side based on Clan or I.S. affliation for Faction play instead of using quirks it would leave several problems:

1) The Quick Play queue does not care what faction pilots or their mechs belong to. When Clan Wave 1 was out before the Quirk system, the side with more Clan-tech mechs had a BIG advantage. So while Faction play would benefit, Quick play would likely suffer.

2) Even looking at Clan V.S. Clan mechs, there are amazing performers like the Artic Cheetah, and mechs that need help, like the Mist Lynx. The same goes for I.S. mechs. If Quirks were removed entirely from MWO, PGI would be forced to balance a chasis using the mechs physical shape and hardpoints available, both of which would take up considerable time and resources from their programers and designers.

3) There is a strong pull toward whatever mech gets players the best score. If Clan mechs regain the level of advantage when Wave 1 was released ( or going back to Battletech roots), how many players would use I.S. mechs when match score matters?
If Hunchbacks and Hunchback IIC mechs were competing for the same cash prize, and the quirk system did not exist ( no heat, structure or other quirk advantages) how many players out of 100 would take the regular Hunchie over the IIC?

Edited by SilentScreamer, 21 March 2016 - 04:13 PM.

[happy mech]

hello pgi, heat system is broken, clan weapons are broken, http://mwomercs.com/...gi-please-read/

[The Smoking Man]

Yes... as mentioned above, I think this needs a fresh look at. People try screaming "clans OP", but this is unfounded.. they must not play clan mechs, like ever... Quirks should either ALL go away, or clans need some structure quirking buffs. It's a bit silly to see someone cry about clan mechs... it's laughable to say we're OP. Been getting mildly frustrated after recent update, I've not been having quite as much fun, it really seems that the gap between IS and Clan mechs has widened. IS mechs being on the buffer end right now.

[Sahrang]

I think clans are currently balanced with IS mechs. seriously, why would you want this to change? it's a multiplayer game, not a single player game. we need balance, not lore roots. at the first clan wave, the clan superiority was obvious, i remember counting the number of dire wolf and timber wolf in my games just to know if i was goin to win it or not.
but now, with all the new IS mechs, especially in the assaults category, it's fine.
and as for those who say "try 10 clans v 12 IS", are u kidding me? just imagine, if they will ever lose a game they would say "oh that's unfair it's 10 v 12"

some players don't even understand that their "solutions" could potentially destroy their loved game.

[The Smoking Man]

" some players don't even understand that their "solutions" could potentially destroy their loved game. "

Some people think it is already destroyed...

[Yukari Akiyama]

How about let clanners use IS mechs in Faction warfare and vice versa? Lets see how many players swap battlemechs.

[Lances107]

Sahrang just run the torsos clan vrs IS mechs and you will see the drastic difference. Also the clan mechs still do not have true Omni tech. Now that all being said I will stick with clan mechs despite the advantage of the IS mechs. Clan using IS mechs in faction warfare, whats the point of faction warfare then?

Really old thread.

[The14th]

Lances107, on 24 April 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

Sahrang just run the torsos clan vrs IS mechs and you will see the drastic difference. Also the clan mechs still do not have true Omni tech. Now that all being said I will stick with clan mechs despite the advantage of the IS mechs. Clan using IS mechs in faction warfare, whats the point of faction warfare then?

Really old thread.

True Clan tech can't be put into the game, because TT explicitly held that all Clan tech was superior during the invasion. Why does that need to be continually stated? Also, if the Clan mechs are so inferior how have they marched down the map in previous CW betas (completely serious question)? When I read the forums there seems to be no agreement at all on if Clan mechs are better, worse, or about equal to IS mechs

[Threat Doc]

This game will NEVER be balanced by any kind of warfare ('Mech, Community, Information, or Role), and the numbers SHOULD go back to tabletop values. Then, to get balance, PGI needs to figure out how to play uneven teams and introduce an MWO version of Battle Value. With Battle Value, you will be able to remove quirks from everything, since they don't belong in a BattleTech game, put the Clans back to their OP status and, because of the way Battle Value works, you could then have teams with BV buckets within 5% of one another, and the fights would be even at that point.

No one wants to listen to that, but Paul is doing all in his power to balance 110 weapon systems, and the various combinations that make them impossible to balance, on an increasing number of 'Mechs and variants against all other 'Mechs and variants, and you're talking about TRILLIONS of possible combinations. This is an impossible and ultimately time-wasting task, where a MechWarrior Online variant of Battle Value would take care of the whole ball of wax, calculating the various components and performance profiles created by MechWarrior's in this game, on the spot, and then multiplying it by the Piloting and Gunnery Skill Rating modifier already in calculation by this game, to account for the pilot.

Each pilot's overall Battle Value, calculated on Saving in the Mechlab, is then dumped into a bucket against other players from specific factions, and as long as the overall added Battle Value of both teams is within 5% of one another, go play and have fun. 5% May not sound like a whole lot, but when we're talking the potential for tens of thousands of points, 5% becomes minuscule. There would be no reason for PSR, anymore, only Cadet, Green, Regular, Veteran, and Elite ratings, with Cadet being the starting MechWarrior Quality, Green, Regular, and Veteran achievable over time, and then Elite reserved for those who have truly special skills. Each MechWarrior Quality value provides a multiplier that is applied to the overall rating of the BattleMech, and then is added to the launch buckets as normal. This way you could have pilots from all Quality values working on the same team, but if one team has one Elite, that would be worth, roughly, two Veteran players, and one Veteran player being worth, roughly, two Regular Quality players, and then one Regular... you probably get the point.

Clan tech would have some pretty massive advantages in greater range and damage, shorter cool-down, higher speed and better gear that is far better maintained, so you're talking about a Clan 'Mech being worth roughly 1.5 BattleMechs of the same tonnage rating -NOT weight class- and a more accurate battle to boot. A full Company of Inner Sphere 'Mechs should never face more than 7 Clan 'Mechs, or a reinforced Star. I've heard people scream and yell that it should be 12 v 10, but that is an incorrect assessment of the overwhelming firepower, armor, heat dissipation, and movement capability of Clan 'Mechs.

Am I being heard, though? No. Russ, Paul, and Bryan would rather see the ship completely sink than follow the advice of someone with some actual game experience.

See, all you anti-lore folks don't seem to understand something... the game was already balanced, and it was complex enough to use. However, the powers that be decided to proceed from the un-proven assumption that a tabletop game cannot possibly translate, at all period, into a computer game. Well, considering that what we're talking about, here, is numbers, and computer programs are based on a LOT of numbers, that was a ******* assumption, wasn't it?

God, I hope Paul pulls his head out of his hind-quarters before this game completely fails, and has enough time to fix what's wrong.

[The14th]

Kay Wolf, on 24 April 2016 - 10:53 PM, said:

Wall of text

1. TT rules/numbers are balanced around dice-based accuracy tests and turn-based combat. MW games are real-time with human players who are much more accurate and don't act in an initiative structure. That alone really invalidates a 1:1 usage of TT rules. A slow, ponderous 100 tonner is easier to kill when you can reliably target the exact same section (which is also why they are not favored in CW). How would you address that in your BVs?

2. BV, like all point-buy systems, is based on the structure of purchasing an entire unit/army under a strict points cap. This promotes the creation of unit synergy as well as the taking of smaller, cheaper units (if only to pad numbers) to pump value into/support the actions of bigger units. Unfortunately due to the nature of these point values in games with large & diverse unit types, there is no 100% accurate point value for most things. Which makes slamming a pug together with a 5% margin of error a bit dangerous.

3. Would there not be a severe incentive for high ranked players to smurf in your system? A pre-made of high-skill smurfs could take far more gear/pilots into a fight against an opponent, probably one they would outrank on their main account.

4. Clanners rolling with far less mechs would basically require them to be a pre-made group, since they would need to coordinate their fits to deal with the fact that if they roll into a 12-man IS death blob they will not survive. And even then, a coordinated IS force will stomp them out with focus fire (which, again, doesn't work the same way on TT thanks to turn order and dice). Unless you want to give them straight up hp buffer, in which case nobody will roll IS mechs outside of CW.

Don't bother trying to get this to Paul, you have some glaring holes to patch over first.

[Threat Doc]

The14th, on 25 April 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

1. TT rules/numbers are balanced around dice-based accuracy tests and turn-based combat.

Did I say anything about specific tabletop rules? No, I didn't, so read next time.

Quote

How would you address that in your BVs?

Battle Values are entirely independent of tabletop rules, and do not require tabletop to remain accurate; it's a good for the goose, good for the gander situation. I did not call for a turn-by-turn system, I did not call for an initiative system, and an MWO version of Battle Value would not require them, period.

Quote

2. BV, like all point-buy systems, is based on the structure of purchasing an entire unit/army under a strict points cap. This promotes the creation of unit synergy as well as the taking of smaller, cheaper units (if only to pad numbers) to pump value into/support the actions of bigger units. Unfortunately due to the nature of these point values in games with large & diverse unit types, there is no 100% accurate point value for most things. Which makes slamming a pug together with a 5% margin of error a bit dangerous.

Okay, you don't have any clue what Battle Value, in the BattleTech context, means, so I'll explain it. Each part of a 'Mech has a certain value placed on it, whether weapons, armor, ammunition, special equipment. What you need for a proper Battle Value is an Offensive and Defensive Rating for the 'Mech, averaged together, and then special equipment BV is added to that, and then that value, the value of the tool, which is your BattleMech, is modified for the Piloting and Gunnery already available in the telemetry PGI takes in for each match played. If the 'Mech is modified, again, and as the pilot grows in Piloting and Gunnery Skill and, perhaps, tactical ability, and as any tech tree -'Mech or Pilot- adds are purchased, the Battle Value changes, as well, and is calculated upon completion of modification of the 'Mech, while in the Mechlab.

Quote

3. Would there not be a severe incentive for high ranked players to smurf in your system? A pre-made of high-skill smurfs could take far more gear/pilots into a fight against an opponent, probably one they would outrank on their main account.

There would, eventually, be rules for abuse as, basically, that's cheating. Besides, there would be enough going into Battle Value to ensure there is some manner of baseline for these 'Mechs, and they're still modified for the PS/GS of the pilot. If people are going to be {Richard Cameron} about it, it doesn't matter what sort of system you have in place, morons will take advantage; if the shoe fits, wear it. Their wins will be all about cheating and, while I'm sure there are many who sleep well enough at night when they've been cheating, there are far more who will play the system the way it should be played. Generally, when an individual designs a 'Mech for tabletop using the Battle Value system, and that BV is pretty high, the 'Mech is also very well designed. If these cheaters want to take advantage by under-powering their 'Mechs, it doesn't matter what their MechWarrior Quality is, they will still lose.

Quote

4. Clanners rolling with far less mechs would basically require them to be a pre-made group, since they would need to coordinate their fits to deal with the fact that if they roll into a 12-man IS death blob they will not survive. And even then, a coordinated IS force will stomp them out with focus fire (which, again, doesn't work the same way on TT thanks to turn order and dice). Unless you want to give them straight up hp buffer, in which case nobody will roll IS mechs outside of CW.

The training and who hits whom with what tactics is not the problem, because those issues existed in all previous computer games, and the tabletop. Battle Value isn't about which tactics or 'Mechs are used, it's about trying to get the best matching scores possible. As long as rules are set to ensure that tonnage within 1% of the final design is used -if you have a 90 ton 'Mech it can only go short by .9 tons, for example-, or else the 'Mech is considered to be invalid, there will be much less of a problem with any pilot under-designing their 'Mech significantly enough to affect Battle Value negatively and making the sides that much uneven.

Quote

Don't bother trying to get this to Paul, you have some glaring holes to patch over first.

No holes whatsoever; holes covered. You, of course, will see holes because you can't see a better future than what we presently have for this game, and you will, of course, continue to argue silly useless points because you want to.

Now, I've been working on getting Battle Value used in this game since the beginning, and my thoughts on the use and mechanics of BV has evolved, and it's been addressed in town hall's that PGI want to see how PSR does before they decide whether or not they would develop a Battle Value system, so I continue to plug away at it. Since PSR is disturbingly broken, as it is -though I've actually developed a system to allow PSR to be successful, as well-, my hope is that Battle Value will soon become a reality. At that time, I will purchase and have delivered a case of V8.

[The14th]

Kay Wolf, on 25 April 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

wall

1. So how exactly would you value an assault mech vs. a heavy then? What will be the hierarchy of weight classes? Will you run it as a bell curve away from ideal speeds/armor/etc... values? What about non-numerical aspects, like hit-boxes or physical profiles? Have you thought about any of these things?

2. I know EXACTLY what BV is. And the entire theory of it was based on the tabletop point-buy model, usually involving a hard ceiling and one person creating the entire force. That is exactly the opposite conditions of MWO, and needlessly complicates matchmaking with more variables. And all of that assumes you could actually figure out accurate BVs for this game, which is uncharted territory since I cannot think of any other game that operates on such a system (thanks to the complication of human players not possessing a stat block).

3. The problem is you are merging your ranking system with your mech balance system. And if it does not hold enough of a value to influence a match composition even in the worst smurf cases then those values are so minuscule as to be functionally worthless. As for the design of mechs showing skill, the internet has long eliminated individual brilliance through mass theorycrafting and copying. And I said they could OVERpower their mechs in your system while smurfing, not underpower.

4. You didn't reply to anything I said about Clan mechs. How will clan mechs be worth "1.5 IS mechs"? Will you use HP buffer? How will a numerically inferior force win games?

I'm nowhere near convinced you don't have a chasm running through your concept, especially since you completely dodged anything about Clan mechs other than they would be "better". As far as I can tell, your idea of BV would be even more complicated than the balance concepts we have now.

Edited by The14th, 25 April 2016 - 07:14 PM.

[no one]

SilentScreamer, on 21 March 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Has PGI really play tested Clan mechs VS the I.S. mechs with differing number of players per side since Clan Wave 1 balancing?
Say for example 2 Stars ( 10 clan mechs total) VS 3 lances ( 12 I.S. mechs total). I am pretty sure the answer is no.

Even if PGI did take a look at balancing the number of pilots/mechs on each side based on Clan or I.S. affliation for Faction play instead of using quirks it would leave several problems:

1) The Quick Play queue does not care what faction pilots or their mechs belong to.

2) Even looking at Clan V.S. Clan mechs, there are amazing performers like the Artic Cheetah, and mechs that need help, like the Mist Lynx. The same goes for I.S. mechs. If Quirks were removed entirely from MWO, PGI would be forced to balance a chasis using the mechs physical shape and hardpoints available, both of which would take up considerable time and resources from their programers and designers.

3) There is a strong pull toward whatever mech gets players the best score. If Clan mechs regain the level of advantage when Wave 1 was released ( or going back to Battletech roots), how many players would use I.S. mechs when match score matters?
If Hunchbacks and Hunchback IIC mechs were competing for the same cash prize, and the quirk system did not exist ( no heat, structure or other quirk advantages) how many players out of 100 would take the regular Hunchie over the IIC?

Well now you've put me in the awkward position of partially agreeing with Kay Wolf. PGI may not have tested it but that's hardly a reason to do or not do something. The real crux of the issue is that it's DUMB to try and make all chassis in a given weight bracket equivalent to each other just because you're balancing system only matches 'Mechs by tonnage. Hell, you argued that yourself in point 2. BV can't be translated directly from TT. It wouldn't work well in MWO. That doesn't mean there's no better option than tonnage matching. PGI has REAMS of statistics on the average performance of each chassis. They just need to use those statistics, and then -maybe- modify that by chassis load out.

1 - Quick never should have mixed lances of IS and Clan 'Mechs. There is and NEVER WAS an excuse to do so. Dividing the queue into ISvsIS, ClanvsClan and ISvsClan fights based on how many people in each tech base were in queue would have had negligible impact on wait times.

2 - I like quirks. Quirks are great for fluff value and chassis variation and a lot of other reasons above and beyond balance. Not all quirks are sensible as implemented but they only impact team balance in a tonnage based matching system. Tonnage has never been a good balance matching criteria. They could easily attach something LIKE a 'battle value' to 'Mechs and chassis based on their overall statistical w/l, k/d and damage performance for all players, but for some reason people seem allergic to the idea regardless of how much better it would be than tonnage matching. If the match maker weighted chassis by performance then Quirks would be great flavor without undermining balance. It wouldn't even be hard to do pull statistics on chassis performance to assign BV to 'mechs. PGI HAS that data. All they have to do is add it up and take the mean.

3 - So weight that by the 'Mechs BV too. If you get in a match and wreck face in an urban 'Mech you get slightly better payout or scoring or whatever than if you pull the same damage and so on in a Timber. That beats cramming so many quirks into the Urbie that it's individually competitive with an arctic cheetah. That homogenizing crap ruins the entire flavor of asymmetric forces that makes battle-tech and 'mech warrior fun!

The14th, on 25 April 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

stuff

I think everyone's over-complicating what you'd need to do for BV style balance. Hell you could just weight by average match score and you'd do better than trying to quirk a charger into something that can toe-off with a Dire.

1 - Most of that could be boiled down to performance statistics. You're in an awesome and the enemy is easily shooting you by accident? You probably have a lower match score, w/l ratio and k/d ratio. Roll those into a representative performance number.

2 - Not all that complicated. Just take the existing tonnage matching system and then weight a 'Mechs "effective tonnage" up or down based on it's average performance, or 'BV' value. An arctic cheetah might have an effective tonnage of 45 while an Atlas RS gets an effective tonnage of 90. You'd could need to record a different value for Clan vs IS fights and for IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan fights since different tech like streak 6s could make IS light 'Mech's move vulnerable in cross-tech fights. The impact of asymmetric force sizes could then be gauged by relative performance in ISvClan vs same tech fights. So if you're in a 10v12 your Arctic Cheetah's effective tonnage might drop to 40 because it's fighting against a slight force size disadvantage.

3 - What? I think I missed something. I admit to arguing my own system more than Kay's at this point but how would that work? People intentionally piloting like steeringwheelunderhivers for weeks on end to drop a 'Mech's value?

4 - Clan 'Mechs really are straight upgrades of IS 'Mechs in a LOT of regards even after PGI horribly gimped them with things like longer beam duration, severe weapon heat increases and locked hardware (hoses some 'Mechs but not all). They still have much lighter weapons, more compact endo and fero, XL engines that can take a side torso loss and so on. Personally I think a 10Clan vs 12IS fight RIGHT NOW would be pretty even. If you returned heat and damage on all weapons to tabletop values then 1.5 wouldn't be too off. Of course it's not like you'd be locked in to whatever force ratio you set initially. Adjust relative force sizes, adjust weapon performance, get the matches close and then let BV do the fine tuning. There's a test server, or so I've heard.


God DAMN that's too much words. Screw this I'm out.

Edited by no one, 25 April 2016 - 09:50 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

iippo, on 21 March 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

i dont really know what im talking about, but wouldnt obvious change be to make the clan mechs OP and at the same time give IS few extra players and tonnage for CW?

was asked for by the players, and rejected by P.G.I for making it to difficult to balance matches

[Threat Doc]

The14th, on 25 April 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

1. So how exactly would you value an assault mech vs. a heavy then? What will be the hierarchy of weight classes? Will you run it as a bell curve away from ideal speeds/armor/etc... values? What about non-numerical aspects, like hit-boxes or physical profiles? Have you thought about any of these things?

Yes, and none of them apply. Each 'Mech, regardless of weight class -many people desire to have weight classes determine EVERYTHING in this game, but they don't know what they're talking about- is calculated based on the BV system. Bell curve? Really? Hierarchy? Unnecessary. Point-buy system? NO.

Quote

2. I know EXACTLY what BV is. And the entire theory of it was based on the tabletop point-buy model, usually involving a hard ceiling and one person creating the entire force.

No no no... you're thinking of BattleForce values, not Battle Value, itself, so you didn't know what you were talking about. Battle Value is how you calculate the usefulness of an individual 'Mech, not what it takes to purchase the 'Mech for use on the battlefield.

Quote

3. The problem is you are merging your ranking system with your mech balance system. And if it does not hold enough of a value to influence a match composition even in the worst smurf cases then those values are so minuscule as to be functionally worthless. As for the design of mechs showing skill, the internet has long eliminated individual brilliance through mass theorycrafting and copying. And I said they could OVERpower their mechs in your system while smurfing, not underpower.

Well, I apologize for misunderstanding you, but over-powering is the point. The more power a 'Mech has, the higher the Battle Value it will have, the more of the bucket it fills, which means matching the enemy team within 5% MAY end up having fewer 'Mechs against an opposing team whose 'Mechs are right-powered or under-powered.

As for the rest of what you said, you're still working with the BattleFORCE understanding of point-buy systems, not the rating system that is Battle Value.

Quote

4. You didn't reply to anything I said about Clan mechs. How will clan mechs be worth "1.5 IS mechs"? Will you use HP buffer? How will a numerically inferior force win games?

I don't have to. If you compare the tabletop statistics for Inner Sphere and Clan Large Lasers, you'll notice a huge difference; heat generation is no difference, but damage is two more for Clans, which also fire 180m further than Inner Sphere, only weight four tons and take 1 critical as opposed to the Inner Sphere requiring 5 tons and 2 critical spaces. Just with the firing max range, and with a medium range for Clans the same distance as long range for Inner Sphere, that's going to put on 24% more Battle Value over Inner Sphere ER Large Lasers, the smaller tonnage an additional 20%, and damage an additional 20% for damage. If an Inner Sphere ER Large Laser grants a BV2 of 163, then a Clan ER Large Laser, according to my math, should give 64% more BV, or 254, and we find on Sarna.net, 248, which is only 6 points off from my off-the-cuff calculation, and a difference between the weapons, if I use Sarna's number, of 85 points. This is ONE weapon, not the entirety of the 'Mech these weapons would be mounted on, and does NOT include the rate of fire calculated in this game. Cool-down, according to Smurfy's, for both ERLLs is 3.25, but if they had a different RoF, that percentage would be calculated into the weapon BV, as well.

As an example, the disparity in numbers from my previous paragraph should display how the differences between 'Mechs would be treated, and how they would affect overall Battle Value. While you might still have 12 v 12 fights between Inner Sphere units, the disparity in super-high Battle Value of Clan 'Mechs as compared to Inner Sphere 'Mechs leaves a fight, if Clan 'Mechs are at their full true-game strength, that would put a Star, perhaps reinforced with one or two Omni's against a full Company (12) Inner Sphere 'Mechs.

Each 'Mech added to a bucket bestows its' game-calculated PS/GS modified Battle Value, which are solid numbers added with other solid numbers, nothing needing to be calculated for the multiple trillions of types of 'Mech combinations, nothing modified for the environment -though this COULD be done, again based on recorded game telemetry for wins and losses across different types of maps, though THAT would become cumbersome if/when enough maps are added. So, how these 'Mechs are calculated is done for the sake of the pilot and their machine, not for the team or anything else. You match both teams buckets against one another, within 5% of one another, and then go to work.

I understand your goal is to poo-poo the idea, whether because it doesn't fit your play style, or because you like to argue, or you're honestly just trying to understand the process, but the game remains broken all to pieces almost three years after launch, and nearly five years after announcement. The fact that common sense, BattleTech game-based solutions, which already exist and would readily work in this game, such as Battle Value -which was MechForce North America more than actual BattleTech, but adopted as such-, and the numbers from the board game, if not the exact rules are being left out, is just insanity. If you wish to continue to fail to understand, that's fine, as it's not likely to happen, anyway; PGI seems more concerned with making this game fail, rather than paying attention to those of us who would save the game, for us, with a vested interest in seeing BattleTech shoe-horned into this comparatively rather limited video game, and for them. If that's what you want to continue to see, I welcome you to keep your opinion, and I'll continue to fight for what I know for a fact would work, given the chance; at the very least, it is no worse than what we have in the way of weight classes and PSR.

Quote

I'm nowhere near convinced you don't have a chasm running through your concept, especially since you completely dodged anything about Clan mechs other than they would be "better". As far as I can tell, your idea of BV would be even more complicated than the balance concepts we have now.

Of course you're going to say that, because you don't know, literally, what you're talking about. You're thinking BattleForce's point-buy system, not individual ratings in Battle Value for 'Mechs modified by Piloting and Gunnery Skill. You don't seem to want to understand how Clan weapons, armor, engines, internal structure, double heat sinks, etc., would be so much higher in Battle Value, as individual components, than their Inner Sphere counterparts, at their tabletop values. {SHRUG} Oh well. Before I leave this line of reasoning, let me ask you a question... have you ever spectated from the cockpit of a Clan 'Mech? Have you ever noticed the difference in the sheer number of weapons, armor, and speed even the nerf'd OmniMechs have when compared to an Inner Sphere 'Mech of the same weight class? I think it was a Summoner (?) I saw one time, and the weapons list it had reached two-thirds up the screen with tiny weapons. I just gasped and asked myself what manner of insanity it was. Are you going to tell me Clan 'Mechs wouldn't have MUCH higher Battle Values, what with lighter weapons generating less hit and firing farther than their Inner Sphere counterparts, meaning they need fewer heat sinks, can mount half again the number of weapons any Inner Sphere 'Mech of the same weight class is able, and can stand further away to hit you.

If that's what you're trying to tell me, then please don't even answer this post.

no one, on 25 April 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

Hell, you argued that yourself in point

2. BV can't be translated directly from TT. It wouldn't work well in MWO.

I agree with this, and never said we should translate BV directly from TT... no, MWO is unique enough that it would need to develop its own system for Battle Value based on ideas gleaned from TT, but set for MWO. Remember, though, that an IS ERLL would be the same 163 points on a Raven as it would be on a Mauler or an Atlas or a Wolverine. The values of the individual components do not change between 'Mechs, and they shouldn't. The weapons do not change -unless PGI suddenly puts in changes based on manufacturers- values just because they're on one 'Mech or another.

Quote

1 - Quick never should have mixed lances of IS and Clan 'Mechs. There is and NEVER WAS an excuse to do so. Dividing the queue into ISvsIS, ClanvsClan and ISvsClan fights based on how many people in each tech base were in queue would have had negligible impact on wait times.

Agreed.

Quote

2 - I like quirks. Quirks are great for fluff value and chassis variation and a lot of other reasons above and beyond balance.

What I would rather see are tech trees unique to each BattleMech chassis type, and perhaps have attachments for variants and/or weapon systems, and pilot trees that would allow a player, as they're moving along through the game, earning XP and GXP, to select quirks and improvements for their 'Mechs, rather than the same quirks for all 'Mechs and all chassis, period. PGI were going to do that, but it hasn't happened, and I don't think it ever will.

Quote

Tonnage has never been a good balance matching criteria. They could easily attach something LIKE a 'battle value' to 'Mechs and chassis based on their overall statistical w/l, k/d and damage performance for all players, but for some reason people seem allergic to the idea regardless of how much better it would be than tonnage matching. If the match maker weighted chassis by performance then Quirks would be great flavor without undermining balance. It wouldn't even be hard to do pull statistics on chassis performance to assign BV to 'mechs. PGI HAS that data. All they have to do is add it up and take the mean.

3 - So weight that by the 'Mechs BV too. If you get in a match and wreck face in an urban 'Mech you get slightly better payout or scoring or whatever than if you pull the same damage and so on in a Timber. That beats cramming so many quirks into the Urbie that it's individually competitive with an arctic cheetah. That homogenizing crap ruins the entire flavor of asymmetric forces that makes battle-tech and 'mech warrior fun!

Agreed all the way around!

Quote

I think everyone's over-complicating what you'd need to do for BV style balance. Hell you could just weight by average match score and you'd do better than trying to quirk a charger into something that can toe-off with a Dire.

I know people are over-complicating what Battle Value would mean, and how it could be implemented, but PGI has always claimed they want to make sure the pilot is the one with the skill; however, in the process they IGNORE the tools used by those MechWarrior's to maneuver, move fast or steady, and fire up enemies, which is entirely a missed opportunity.

Quote

1 - Most of that could be boiled down to performance statistics. You're in an awesome and the enemy is easily shooting you by accident? You probably have a lower match score, w/l ratio and k/d ratio. Roll those into a representative performance number.

Absolutely correct.

I cannot agree with modifying "effective" tonnage by a pilot's skills, because each 'Mech can do different things, and PGI decided to use hardpoints in order to attempt to keep 'Mechs within their specific roles, so they would have the appropriate flavor. So, a 55-ton Kintaro and a 55-ton Wolverine would, under your system, and with similarly skilled pilots, have the same effective value. However, being a driver of both those 'Mechs, on a level playing field, my Angry Typewriter Kintaro would level the Wolverine in no time at all, due simply to the reason I call it the Angry Typewriter; 5 LRM-5s with Artemis and 7 tons of ammo, meaning by the time the fifth LRM-5 has fired, the first one is already firing again. In the meantime, my Rainy Days Wolverine, with an ER PPC and 3 LRM-5s with Artemis, is overheating due to simply TRYING to get the same damage. Now, place them in uneven terrain, with my Wolverine's jump jets, it could probably find, close, and decimate the Kintaro, the Wolverine fighting with the ER PPC, and the Kintaro fighting with its ER Large Laser. NOT THE SAME 'MECHs, so weight class is not good enough by a long stretch.

[The14th]

Kay Wolf, on 26 April 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

stuff

1. Wait, none of that applies? How can speed and armor not apply? And by creating a system that values some things over others, by default there must be some sort of hierarchy. What would establish the BV of a component or chassis? And if you're not going to use a bell curve, what sort of curve would you use to plot out your base values (before the inevitable tweaking)? Wouldn't hit-boxes affect player accuracy and therefore have value to your rating system?

2. BVs have always been what you used in pickup games to build forces for TT (unless you are playing a campaign, then it's CBills). And unless you're playing a specific scenario, generally players would set a spending cap on how much a force could be worth in BV. Is that not how you played BT (or any TT wargame for that matter)?

3. BVs are for buying individual mechs to form some sort of force, and that is exactly what players collectively do in MWO. And using that system works fine for TT, where single players or small groups coordinate to decide how many mechs and of what composition and strategy their force will be. But MWO is still primarily a pug game, so the logic behind the BV system is not directly compatible. Players outside of groups could easily overbid, either taking forever to find a match or locking themselves into lopsided contests they don't have the knowledge or skills to win. Same goes for underbidding if the popularity of heavies in quick match remains constant. And this all assumes that your BV values are accurate enough to match 12v12s, much less the uneven numbers contests you want to import from TT.

Remember that this game, like the rest of the MW franchise, is not aimed solely at wargamers who understand balancing value with output. They'll blow their cadet CBills at the biggest values because they'll just assume higher BV is better. I see it all the time in EVE Online, with newer players rage-quitting when their super-kitted out battlecruiser gets rolled by a squadron of Tech-1 frigates. And how good will it feel when a full 12 man team of low skill players in expensive mechs gets rolled by a lower numbers high skill wolfpack?

I don't understand why your buckets idea is that much different from how PGI matches now. The only difference I see is they are trying to match tonnage and chassis while you are attempting to individually value each mech/pilot combination. PGI has the benefit of containing far less variables. Especially with your pilot rating system, which is a nesting doll of complications. You are starting from a math system that assumes pilot values are a constant, the probability of their rolls/performance never changes. Where as human players can have vastly different performances between weapons/chassis/mechs/maps/gamemodes/minutes. This gets bad enough when using average stats & scores to determine a skill ranking/tier, worse when the game balance itself hinges on the numbers being accurate. What happens when a higher skilled player is not operating where the numbers say they should be? Not only is there a skill mis-match, there is now also a pure mechanical mis-match as that person is piloting an over-valued mech. To be truly accurate, you may have to harvest data on individual performance on each map, chassis, weapon system, etc... a person uses and construct a much more complicated model of their skill than most matching systems I can think of. The worst part is, the matching algorithm may have to change every time ANY number in the game gets tweaked.

4. Ok, so we ARE working from TT stat lines then. And yes, those more or less worked on the TT. But again, that is a turn-based system with each team being controlled by one or a few persons to act in concert and actions determined by the predictable results of dice rolls. MWO has the luxury of none of those things. Pilot efficiency can easily surpass anything the npcs in your model cockpits could achieve. This is not to say those stat lines are useless, but their conclusions must all be re-evaluated (i.e. does speed affect accuracy in the same way or not). The Clanner mechs in your postulated system could end up being the default choice for everybody in quick match, why stick with mechs that are explicitly stated to be inferior? Or it could come to pass that everybody ditches on Clanner mechs if the additional BV did not translate to being able to win short-handed matches or getting shoved into matches with players too far above your own skill level. Which one occurs depends on if Clan mech's superior equipment could make up for a numbers disadvantage in a game where focus fire is beyond what the TT game models (i.e. a lance of mechs all smashing up on RT exclusively instead of rolling for hit location on every shot). I'm not saying that your idea could never be made, but it is a theoretical tight rope.


I've seen clan loadaouts, some of them with goofy amounts of the same weapon (think I saw a gargoyle with 14 er-small lasers once). And I understand why they can do it. PGI is trying to give each side an asymmetrical advantage over the other. Clanners can build faster mechs with better dps (through more weapons atm) and range (or a more diverse weapons payload like on TT, but that doesn't seem to be popular). IS, on the other hand, are meant to be more rugged with a more alpha-centric payload. Clanners get heavy customization, while IS mechs are specialized. Are they equally matched? I don't have the information on that, and as an IS-centric player I'm biased and refrain from just declaring Clanners "OP" when they blast me apart. Though the fact that I still see plenty of both in quick matches would at least suggest some sort of parity. Would I make them more valuable in a BV system? Maybe, but I would want to see some compiled statistics from the game server to know if I was just biased or not. And sadly PGI doesn't publish that data.


P.S. - I think it was uncool of you to scold me for inferring you were operating from a TT-centric model, then make this post that heavily references it.

[Threat Doc]

The14th, on 28 April 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

1. Wait, none of that applies? How can speed and armor not apply? And by creating a system that values some things over others, by default there must be some sort of hierarchy. What would establish the BV of a component or chassis? And if you're not going to use a bell curve, what sort of curve would you use to plot out your base values (before the inevitable tweaking)? Wouldn't hit-boxes affect player accuracy and therefore have value to your rating system?

A bell curve is for grading in school, and does not apply, here. There is some sort of Hierarchy, which begins with weight classes and tonnage within the classes, but then classifies 'Mechs according to their abilities, within their tonnage brackets. As a 'Mech is designed, all components are, generally, taken into account, and a system that has been developed to calculate all of that together into a Battle Value, calculate's each 'Mech separately. It is not a point-buy system, it has nothing to do with grades of 'Mechs... the 'Mech you play with, if it's stock, or design and play with, if it's custom, stands on its own by point-value, and the only way it's compared with other 'Mechs is by standing them side-by-side and comparing how they're designed and, thus, came to their individual Battle Values.

Quote

2. BVs have always been what you used in pickup games to build forces for TT (unless you are playing a campaign, then it's CBills). And unless you're playing a specific scenario, generally players would set a spending cap on how much a force could be worth in BV. Is that not how you played BT (or any TT wargame for that matter)?

Perhaps we were saying the same thing, in different ways. Yes, when playing in Tabletop, you set a cap on the BV allowed for each team in the game; as long as the Battle Value total of all the 'Mechs can fit into the agreed-upon BV, then the game is good. As for using BV only in pickup games, that is not correct. BV can be used in all manner of matches, not just PUGs.

Quote

3. BVs are for buying individual mechs to form some sort of force, and that is exactly what players collectively do in MWO. And using that system works fine for TT, where single players or small groups coordinate to decide how many mechs and of what composition and strategy their force will be. But MWO is still primarily a pug game, so the logic behind the BV system is not directly compatible. Players outside of groups could easily overbid, either taking forever to find a match or locking themselves into lopsided contests they don't have the knowledge or skills to win. Same goes for underbidding if the popularity of heavies in quick match remains constant. And this all assumes that your BV values are accurate enough to match 12v12s, much less the uneven numbers contests you want to import from TT.

Yeah, again, it's very clear you don't know what you're talking about, here. Battle Value would be perfect for MWO. It would be easy to set a 5,000 point BV for a 4v4 game in MWO, as long as both teams have 'Mechs fitting within 4,750 to 5,250 total bucket points. This would also open up the ability for each team to play the 'Mechs they want to play, or are more willing to play, than what exists, now. You could have a team that decides to take two Heavy 'Mechs, or three Medium 'Mechs, or one Assault, one Heavy, and one Medium and, as long as they fit within that 5,000 +/-5% range, the game could go off without a hitch. If one team wanted to, as long as they fit within that range, they could take six Lights, no problem.

Now, you're talking about the problem with disparity, and here's where I'm coming from... the way a 'Mech is designed, component for component, weapon for weapon, is what determines its Battle Value. If all 'Mechs are designed the same way, they follow the same Battle Value rules, then the team that wants to bring six Lights is, most likely, going to have weaker weapons and less armor or speed, or stronger weapons while sacrificing armor and/or speed, etc. There are three primary components to 'Mech design, regardless of any game that's ever been made in the BattleTech/MechWarrior universe, and those are Mobility, Firepower, and Defense. If you design a 'Mech which caters equally to all three of those, you can't get your payload to the target fast enough, and you're not able to protect it well enough and, once you arrive, you may not have the armor you need to keep using it. Battle Value takes those individual items into account, and sets a score for them.

In my system, which I actually sat down and began working on for an MWO version of it, I would have all 'Mechs averaged across those three aspects of 'Mech design: Mobility, Firepower, and Defense. Each of those aspects would fall between 1 and 500 points and, upon figuring out all of the modules that might apply to each of those aspects, as well as their basic numbers, these three are averaged, so you come out with a general maximum of between 1 and 500 points. This limitation of 500 can be adjusted up, if necessary, and likely will be, but I have to sit down and take into account not only the components of the 'Mechs, but the stupid quirks, and the modules, as well, to determine how each would be effective in modifying that Battle Value. I'm sure you will agree that's a pretty large task... however, it can be done. If it were to be built into this game, it could be figured automatically each time the 'Mech is modified. I will try to work on that a bit this weekend, see if I can get it straightened out, based on MWOs present numbers with weapons.

Quote

Remember that this game, like the rest of the MW franchise, is not aimed solely at wargamers who understand balancing value with output. They'll blow their cadet CBills at the biggest values because they'll just assume higher BV is better. I see it all the time in EVE Online, with newer players rage-quitting when their super-kitted out battlecruiser gets rolled by a squadron of Tech-1 frigates. And how good will it feel when a full 12 man team of low skill players in expensive mechs gets rolled by a lower numbers high skill wolfpack?

And that's how it should be, except with the leaving. Each individual has their own silly notions about what it takes to build THE CHIEF BattleMech in the universe, and they will try to game the system, and they will fail, and they will either quit, or they'll actually grow a set of balls and learn from it, and crack on.

Quote

I don't understand why your buckets idea is that much different from how PGI matches now. The only difference I see is they are trying to match tonnage and chassis while you are attempting to individually value each mech/pilot combination. PGI has the benefit of containing far less variables.

Alright, I'm going to stop you at this sentence, and probably not answer the rest; I'm starving, it's payday, and I want to take my kids out to dinner.

PGI does not value the individual abilities of the 'Mechs, and they really should. There are some awesome 'Mech designs out there, and some not-so-awesome, and finally some really crappy designs. Because PGI does not value the individual 'Mech designs, the winning and losing going on for each drop is calculated incorrectly. Some pilots do better with 'Mechs they have modified, some pilots do poorly no matter what. Right now, ALL PGI values is the individual pilot, and nothing else, and that is incomplete. That's the answer, right there... the game cannot be balanced by changing numbers on weapons for different 'Mechs when they're introduced to the game, because the balance is a nightmare. However, if each 'Mech had their Battle Value calculated in the Mechlab, and then the number, there, is thrown into a bucket with other pilots, and the two bucket totals being played fall within 5% of one another, you have the most fair match you possibly can. If I were to look into ANY match being played, right now, and compare the designs of those 'Mechs, coupled with the skills of their individual pilots, and of the teams in an MWO based Battle Value system, I would bet you money, right now, that you would find a 25 - 35% disparity in favor of the winning side. ANY GAME.

Quote

4. Ok, so we ARE working from TT stat lines then.

It would work far more seamlessly in MWO than you're willing to give it credit for, and the numbers would be unique to MWO.

However, you only want to argue, you don't want to understand, or are incapable, and you accuse me of using Tabletop values, as if that's a crime, when that is all I have had to reference to this point, so I'm done with you with this post. You are simply trolling, now, and I won't have it. Once I have a working model for what I'm suggesting for Battle Value in MechWarrior Online, I will post it in another thread, and you can see how it will work for yourself. Then, if you still have snide comments and ignorant remarks to make because you desire to argue rather than ATTEMPT to employ your brain and understand, you can make them, there.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 29 April 2016 - 08:38 AM.

[avenger cannon]

All mechs can use all equipment and weapons when electronic loadouts allow.