772 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Kay Wolf, on 28 April 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

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.

I look forward to see your system. That individual BV can work was proven some years ago by the work of the 36th Dieron.
But there is the issue of weapon stats changes. You would admit a Gauss with 10 hitpoints and no charge would neuter the usage of the AC20 again.

So there is the other approach its not as accurate as a individual point system but its much simpler - BV by usage.
Think about it - the top players run a mech think that its the optimum and others will fall in line.
So its almost all the time in Heavy Queue (numbers are an example):
30% TimberWolf
20% Black Knight
10% EBJ
10% TDR-9SE
8% HBR
22% others

This alone would be enough for a sturdy and actual BV system.
And the beauty about it - the ability to build a Mech would keep a pilot skill that matters - while it wouldn't matter when you have a accurate individual BV calculation.

But I bet PGI is tracking the load outs too. So it should be simple to generate a BV calculation based on Mech+Variant+Loadout - simple by running some querys.

You can also include the PSR if you like:
so the TOP BV Heavy Mech in Tier4 would be a different as in Tier3 - although i the PSR level is not convincing.

And this stuff is already there ready to use.

[The Smoking Man]

Kay I hope you understand that people don't like to read a wall of text and probably skipped over 98% of what you wrote. I refused to read it because it was a page of keyboard vomit.

Short and sweet point is... I hear IS complain about balance, I hear Clan complain for the same reasons. That either cancels itself out, or we have some real balance issues.

Would it be unreasonable to have an outside developers opinion on the matter? A fresh set of eyes to look at it, you know... to eliminate confirmation bias.

[Karl Streiger]

The Smoking Man, on 29 April 2016 - 05:49 AM, said:

Short and sweet point is... I hear IS complain about balance, I hear Clan complain for the same reasons. That either cancels itself out, or we have some real balance issues.

Would it be unreasonable to have an outside developers opinion on the matter? A fresh set of eyes to look at it, you know... to eliminate confirmation bias.

Issue is - Clans OP - IS compares Orion with TImberWolf or Catapract with Ebon Jaguar - and when its IS OP they compare Summoners with Thunderbolts. (i hate IS and clan alike - so i'm not biassed right?)
They take the best from one side and compare it with the worst from the other.
But the truth is its not Clan vs IS - its IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan were you have to look first.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 April 2016 - 06:11 AM.

[The Smoking Man]

I'm not sure what you just said... I read it a few times to be sure. But... then I see Tier 4 with over 14 thousand posts!! Do you play at all? If you played as much as you post, I think your opinion could be different.

[Karl Streiger]

Oh seriously nobody is that bad - when the number of posts would be equal to my ability in game - it means i have to do everything possible to not let my team win.

Anyhow what i wanted to say you can't equal Clan OP sayers with Is Op sayers because both don't compare the same level.
To have a valid argumentation its necessary that a Gargle is better than the Timberwolf in most situations.
Or compare Dragon with Griffin.

Usually Clan / Is Op took only one special occassion and say this is the truth
Current example Clans Op in Scout missions because skill Crow
Every argument you have with them is based on this statement.

Same could be said about Clans that complain about Oxides.

You are right when saying Clans and IS are equal but only if you took the A-Mechs of one side and compare it with the best of the other.
When you want to validate the Gargle with the Black Knight the argumentation is a fail

[The Smoking Man]

OK, thank you for the clarity. I understood that one And I can say I still don't agree with that. I don't think that OP is the correct thing to say here. Balance is. Which is why the topic is about re-balance. Are we where we could be? Are we where we should be? Those are the questions.

And just to point this out, fourteen THOUSAND posts.... that is obscene. Thousand!..... That took a considerable amount of time. I mean.. wow!

**edit** And then I see Bishop Steiner with 36 THOUSAND posts... I get confused when I see crap like this. Who has this kind of time?

Edited by The Smoking Man, 29 April 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Karl Streiger, on 29 April 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

I look forward to see your system. That individual BV can work was proven some years ago by the work of the 36th Dieron.

But there is the issue of weapon stats changes. You would admit a Gauss with 10 hitpoints and no charge would neuter the usage of the AC20 again.

I would admit to the fact that no weapon being nerf'd really makes it necessary to switch up weapons, except to maintain the higher volume of damage. Unfortunately, players in this game are too daft to be able to use ANY weapon, regardless of stats, and PGI has been trying to bring about more tactical play when, indeed, all they have done is the complete opposite. In fact EVERYTHING they have done to make the game more tactical, bring about a higher TTK, or anything else has had the exact opposite effect.

You mention weapon stat changes and I presume you are talking about range, damage, heat, health, etc.? If so, then a BV system would, indeed, have to be programmed in such a way that changes to an individual stat on a weapon remains correct in the calculation. In other words, if I change the optimum range of a Medium Laser from 90m to 75m, and then leave the maximum range of that same weapon alone, the only modification to the BV of that specific weapon is from the optimum range change.

Quote

So there is the other approach its not as accurate as a individual point system but its much simpler - BV by usage.
Think about it - the top players run a mech think that its the optimum and others will fall in line.
So its almost all the time in Heavy Queue (numbers are an example):
30% TimberWolf
20% Black Knight
10% EBJ
10% TDR-9SE
8% HBR
22% others

Actually, what grayson marik is talking about is using the very same sort of system I'm advocating, here, with the individual point system, and then modifying it by a supply and demand sort of system, where the more a 'Mech is used, the higher the BV raises, meaning MechWarrior's would have to switch 'Mechs as they master others out, just to be able to meet the ceiling of BV points set for both teams individual buckets. I would have to see the addition in operation, and may join innerspherewars.eu just to do so, as he says this system is in operation, there, but I would not advocate for that, right now, and here's why...

The idea is to allow players to play the 'Mech they most prefer, or have switched to, for any given match, and to NOT be forced to change 'Mechs. The goal is that, as the player uses the 'Mech across several matches, and grows in their comfort level, tactical mind, and overall piloting ability with that 'Mech, their Piloting and Gunnery Skills would improve, raising the point value on the 'Mech, but only slightly for Green, Regular, and Veteran MechWarrior Quality values, and then for Elite it would take quite a jump. Right now, the community is greatly separated by the Tier system; you don't see Tier 1 players playing against Tier 4 or 3 players, unless it's a unit or solo group drop, and then you have a mixture of Tiers, which all but invalidates the PSR system, but that's a different argument. Battle Value would allow the various Tiers, or what I prefer to call MechWarrior Quality, to play together because the individual 'Mechs AND THEIR PILOTS are point-valued, calculated together, and then dropped into a bucket with other members.

Something I think a LOT of people are misunderstanding about my system, is that the Battle Value of a 'Mech IS NOT CALCULATED ON DROP, it's calculated while the player remains within the Mechlab. I hope that's clearer for everyone who hasn't understood to this point?

I think the supply and demand system suggested by grayson marik could be used, easily enough, and might have a decent effect on the game, and I am definitely NOT saying this is anything other than a good idea, but we should take things one step at a time, and get down a point system, first.

Quote

But I bet PGI is tracking the load outs too. So it should be simple to generate a BV calculation based on Mech+Variant+Loadout - simple by running some querys.

Truthfully, it wouldn't even require a 'Mech type or variant to be known, simply how the 'Mech is loaded out. The weapon value for a PPC would be the same on an Orion as it would be on an a Raven, and a Clan ER PPC would be the same on a Shadowcat as it is on a Summoner. The armor and internal structure values go point-by-point, regardless of whether it's normal armor and internal structure, or Inner Sphere or Clan Ferro-Fibrous or Endo Steel. A Clan Double Heat Sink would be worth 25% more than an Inner Sphere version. The Clans, taken back to their tabletop values OR left with their current MWO values, would outclass Inner Sphere 'Mechs all over the place with higher speed, more weapons, better heat dissipation, etc.

What a LOT of Clan players don't understand is that, even with the nerfs, nearly everything about their 'Mech components is still better than Inner Sphere, but that's not calculated or accounted for, because PGI doesn't care about the tools that are used by the artisans, only the artisans themselves, and that in and of itself brings the most serious imbalance to this game, and makes their job 1,000 times harder than it needs to be.

Quote

You can also include the PSR if you like:
so the TOP BV Heavy Mech in Tier4 would be a different as in Tier3 - although i the PSR level is not convincing.

Again, this is a separate conversation I'm having in other threads, but I'll touch briefly on it, here. You're absolutely right, because PGI are using number value thresholds to determine who gains an up arrow, a static PSR, and a down arrow. These numbers need to be removed, and my 8/8/8 system needs to be set in place, where the top 8 Match Scores get an up arrow, the bottom 8 Match Scores get a down arrow, and those last 8 guys in the middle remain with an =, or a static PSR, for that game. Further games, of course, would continue to adjust PSR based on how an individual does and, once a player reaches the static PSR score, that level of play is where they will have the most fun, and will fight against others share their caliber of play value. If someone then gets bored with the way the game is going, they can challenge themselves and work harder to develop their skills so they can move up.

Quote

And this stuff is already there ready to use.

{grimaces} Yep.

The Smoking Man, on 29 April 2016 - 05:49 AM, said:

Kay I hope you understand that people don't like to read a wall of text and probably skipped over 98% of what you wrote. I refused to read it because it was a page of keyboard vomit.

Weak. That is just weakness, right there. If you don't want to read what's written, please go play and leave the forums alone for the adults. You cannot contribute to a discussion unless you know what is being discussed, you can only prove what people already suspect.

Quote

Would it be unreasonable to have an outside developers opinion on the matter? A fresh set of eyes to look at it, you know... to eliminate confirmation bias.

There is nothing an outside developer will be able to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said in nearly 5,000,000 posts on these threads. In fact, there are many people posting in this forum who are developers, programmers, or engineers of some kind, and they've had plenty of input.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 29 April 2016 - 09:18 AM.

[Human Fighter]

I'd like to say as a Clan pilot that I find the current game balance awful. Clan tech is meant to be superior to IS tech. So please revert to that. What I believe would be more interesting is to place existing quirks into the pilot skill trees wither generically across all mechs or have specific quirks in specific skill slots and or have them take up available skill slots by level. This would allow for role customization for players and adding additional endgame material in doing so. This way a New Clan pilot and a new IS pilot are unevenly matched but can work towards becoming more evenly matched.

A veteran IS mech pilot and veteran clanner might both have gauss rifles but those weapons might act a little differently based on those pilots skill choices. AKA if both take range quirks the gap between optimum ranges might only be 50m in the clanner's favor but the IS pilot might instead opt for faster gauss cycling for better DPS or additional speed tweak to get closer faster.

Game balance in this system comes from pilots having to make real choices when leveling their mechs as opposed to having the same skill line for every mech, You could also allow players to use MC/gxp/Cbills to respec these "quirks" allowing for more ways for players to spend currency in your game

I pray some of this finds someone in a position to change things.If things don't get better you will lose players.

[The Smoking Man]

Kay Wolf, on 29 April 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Weak. That is just weakness, right there. If you don't want to read what's written, please go play and leave the forums alone for the adults. You cannot contribute to a discussion unless you know what is being discussed, you can only prove what people already suspect.

A wall of text is strength?

Wait wait wait... I just pulled up your profile Kay, I just had to share this. I find it very telling..

"Today, I become the Bowman. It's been a long time. Though I am not a perfect pilot, I consider myself something of an LRM expert player. That may be a conceit, but a heal..."

Edited by The Smoking Man, 01 May 2016 - 05:23 AM.

[Threat Doc]

The Smoking Man, on 01 May 2016 - 05:15 AM, said:

A wall of text is strength?

Nope... a wall of text is not strength. Being able and willing to pay attention to the entirety of a conversation before opening your mouth and removing all doubt... is strength. If you can't be bothered to read EVERYTHING, don't comment, period.

Quote

Wait wait wait... I just pulled up your profile Kay, I just had to share this. I find it very telling..

"Today, I become the Bowman. It's been a long time. Though I am not a perfect pilot, I consider myself something of an LRM expert player. That may be a conceit, but a heal..."

Yes, and it's not a lie. I told the truth. Please, tell me what the problem is with my statement, I'm eager to tear to you down for denigrating me.

[Wintersdark]

BV by usage could work, but may be a total flop due to the vast numbers of random folks vs. smaller numbers of actually meta-using players.

BV by hardcoded values is awesome in theory but impossibly impractical in practice because of the sheer number of moving parts that would need values, and would need those values finely tuned in respect to each other. If the values aren't just right, balance is as bad or worse than what we have now (because it's exploitable if the values are known). It's not a matter of getting just Medium Lasers rated vs. Autocannon 10's, but getting those Medium lasers rated correctly vs. Seismic Sensor modules, JM6 hardpoint locations, and specific differences in engine ratings.

Hell, engine ratings alone! Is a 400 rated engine worth higher BV than a 300? Does the weight of the mech matter?

It's incredibly hard to build and balance a BV system in MWO; way harder than in Tabletop.

---

Finally, there are two very big, scary nails in the BV-in-MWO coffin:

Nail, the First: We have to have matches 12v12 due to server tech limits. Smaller matches are possible, but use the same server resources as 12v12, so we're not going to see 8v12 quickplay matches and such. Thus, not only does the Matchmaker have to match total battlevalue but it has to do that AND match player counts.

Nail, the Second: We can't even match PSR all the time, due to player counts. PSR is pretty accurate during prime time, but the rest of the time there's a huge spread - upwards of 3/5ths of the games population, and weight class matching for 3/3/3/3 is impossible. If the MM cannot make these matches with just PSR and weight class, adding BV isn't going to help. We'll still have equally unbalanced matches.

So, all the extra work going into developing and maintaining through game balance/mechanics changes is going to end up not actually working even if the values are magically perfect because there simply aren't enough players to make it work.

[Threat Doc]

Wintersdark, you have absolutely missed the entire point behind Battle Value. Go back and re-read.

[Threat Doc]

Wintersdark, on 01 May 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

BV by usage could work, but may be a total flop due to the vast numbers of random folks vs. smaller numbers of actually meta-using players.

The groupings of folks have nothing to do with Battle Value, until all of their bucket numbers are added together.

Quote

BV by hardcoded values is awesome in theory but impossibly impractical in practice because of the sheer number of moving parts that would need values, and would need those values finely tuned in respect to each other. If the values aren't just right, balance is as bad or worse than what we have now (because it's exploitable if the values are known). It's not a matter of getting just Medium Lasers rated vs. Autocannon 10's, but getting those Medium lasers rated correctly vs. Seismic Sensor modules, JM6 hardpoint locations, and specific differences in engine ratings.

That's not how Battle Value works. Each part has its own value, the values are added together for each of Mobility, Firepower, and Defense, and averaged, and then special gear, of which there should be almost nothing, would be added to that final total. We're talking the components, weapons, quirks, and modules that cannot be classified into Mobility, Firepower, or Defense. By the way if something can be classified into more than one of those three main categories for BV determination, the category it fits most into is where it goes. Either that, or it would be figured into each of those categories separately and, since it's going to be averaged, anyway, it would just be another number.

Quote

Hell, engine ratings alone! Is a 400 rated engine worth higher BV than a 300? Does the weight of the mech matter?

Except for a penalty for running with an XL engine, engine ratings, tonnages, etc., are not considered at all. The movement of the 'Mech is calculated, instead. The penalty for running XL is made up for through the calculations of other components, weapons, modules, and quirks on the 'Mech, and the penalty would not be that terrible in the first place, though worse for Inner Sphere XL than for Clans, because they take up more space.

Quote

It's incredibly hard to build and balance a BV system in MWO; way harder than in Tabletop.

Ummm, yeah, you don't understand Battle Value, either. It's not a matter of balancing it against everything else in the game... that's what's taking place right now with Paul screwing around with weapon numbers in an attempt to achieve balance. The idea is to have the individual builds calculated IAW BV-MWO WHILE IN THE MECHLAB, and then this replaces tonnage and PSR, as they would become unnecessary. It would be Battle Value buckets, period, nothing else, and they have to be within 5% of one another before a launch can be made.

Quote

Finally, there are two very big, scary nails in the BV-in-MWO coffin:

Nail, the First: We have to have matches 12v12 due to server tech limits. Smaller matches are possible, but use the same server resources as 12v12, so we're not going to see 8v12 quickplay matches and such. Thus, not only does the Matchmaker have to match total battlevalue but it has to do that AND match player counts.

Yeah, I think this was why Russ, for the past two Town Hall's has been talking about possibly going with a different engine, or at least an updated Cry Engine. By the way, this is something the Engineers can't figure out, it's not a matter of server limitations. It's funny that uneven games happen all the time in the games we hate to mention on these forums, such as CoD or Battlefield, but they can't be done, here? Come on.

Quote

Nail, the Second: We can't even match PSR all the time, due to player counts. PSR is pretty accurate during prime time, but the rest of the time there's a huge spread - upwards of 3/5ths of the games population, and weight class matching for 3/3/3/3 is impossible. If the MM cannot make these matches with just PSR and weight class, adding BV isn't going to help. We'll still have equally unbalanced matches.

I have a secret for you, though... PGI cares more about tonnage, still, than PSR. PSR is for our viewing benefit and, as long as people are in the same Tier, these numbers otherwise mean nothing.

Quote

So, all the extra work going into developing and maintaining through game balance/mechanics changes is going to end up not actually working even if the values are magically perfect because there simply aren't enough players to make it work.

Okay, first, PSR is inaccurate all the way around, because PGI has placed false benchmark damage values for winning and losing sides to have up, down, or static PSRs. Those need to be removed, the Match Score calculated as normal, then the top 8 Match Scores need to have an up arrow, the bottom 8 with down arrows, and the middle 8 remain static.

Now... what you are trying to do is see Battle Value as a matter of balance mixed throughout the game code when, indeed, it is a separate calculation performed upon hitting the Save button in the Mechlab, and is NOT affected at all by anyone else's PSR, Elo, Battle Value, Tonnage, or ANYTHING else. The 'Mech gains ratings in Defensive, Firepower, and Mobility main calculations, is then averaged together, extra-special non-classifiable into these three aspects of Battle Value, are then added, then all of that is modified by a game-determined Piloting and Gunnery Skill. Whether that is by Tier in PSR, or is an actual Piloting and Gunnery Skill determined by metrics PGI ALREADY TRACKS, modifies the overall Battle Value of that 'Mech.

I'm not sure how better to describe this to get people to understand how it works. Now, since it's enormously obvious that bloody few people have the fortitude to read and understand what I have now repeated in this thread four or five times, with minor differences in order to make it possible for the most daft of people to understand, I'm done explaining it. I don't have the money to buy out this backwards company and get done what needs to be done, and I will not accept that we are stuck with the current PSR and horribly-bad tonnage-based drop system, so I'm done, here. If you can't understand such a simple and forward concept, Wintersdark, then I won't be able to convince the most daft among us. I'm pretty well done with this game, anyway, at least until it changes. And, if it never changes, it's not that big a loss for me, now.

My goal was to try and hold PGI to save this game. I have a physical snail mail letter going out to them, tomorrow, and then I think I may very well be done, completely.

[Wintersdark]

Kay Wolf, on 01 May 2016 - 08:19 PM, said:

The groupings of folks have nothing to do with Battle Value, until all of their bucket numbers are added together.

You misunderstand. "Battle Value by Usage" is a separately proposed system by which the values for each given piece of equipment are determined dynamically by their usage. Thus, "meta" tends to be self correcting - the best equipment gets a higher BV, and it doesn't rely on some Paul or other correctly guesstimating what it should be.

It's flaws, though, tend to center around there being lots of players who regularly use bad stuff, and things like Hero mechs which are inherently rarer.

---

As to the rest.

I know exactly how BV works. I do. I've been around here for a while, I've had this discussion a lot of times, and I spent my fair share of time in BT as well.

My point, and I'll try to drill down to as fine a point as possible here, is that it's WAY HARDER to determine what values you give to each piece of equipment in MWO than tabletop. Way harder. In tabletop, weapons are wholly described by math. In tabletop, you can determine ttk very accurately with simple formula based on weapon stats. In MWO, it's way more complicated. So many more variables.

What value should a medium laser have? An AC20? In tabletop, hitting someone with a laser or ac20 is functionally the same. In MWO, it totally isn't. Does the base chassis alter the value of firepower? Does it count hardpoint placement? Good hardpoint placement allows a mech to project firepower far better while remaining much more covered. Any system rating mechs but ignoring hardpoint placement is garbage from the start, as hardpoint locations is one of the largest single factors in overall mech power. And that's just one example of the new variables vs. Tabletop.


Now, when I say "balancing BV" I don't mean making everything fair, like you'd say for balancing weapons or what have you currently.

I mean, ensuring that the values assigned to each piece of equipment are the CORRECT values. If a Medium Laser is worth 100BV, and a PPC is worth 20BV(extreme example), mechs packing PPC's are going to be rated much lower than they should be and this is going to result in unfair matchups. Worse, it's going to be predictable: players seeing weapons that are rated lower than they should be will be able to "smurf" their builds into lower BV.

The flaws, the nails in the coffin, as I said in my post above remain.

You can't make a match with appropriate BV's if those BV's don't exist.

I get that PSR is ******, and I didn't say it was good. What I said was they can't match PSR ratings as it stands. Whether they are accurate or not is irrelevant; they can't make matches of like ranked players at all but the busiest times. Im not discussing whether PSR is good or not or resultant matchmaking quality! Only that each player has a svore, the MM tries to build matches around that score, and fails. It'd be the same with BV scores. This is wholly due to insufficient player counts, and no magic system can fix that.

The PSR matchmaker actually uses your specific rating, BTW, not tier while building matches. Russ shared the MM accuracy in terms of rating in a prior town hall. But that doesn't matter. Let's pretend it only uses tiers. If the MM cannot make matches with players with one of 5 scores, while trying for 3/3/3/3 there's no hope of it getting anything close to parity with a wide range of BV.

It's simply impossible.


This discussion has been had countless times over the years, and it always comes down to the above. Even if you could magically get the right values for everything (ridiculously hard) we don't have the pops to make it work any better.

[Threat Doc]

Okay, then you and I will have to agree to disagree on this, because none of what you mentioned is necessary in the least. It's making a system designed to be as simple as possible, impossible, because as you outlined, you feel this needs to be integrated among the entirety of 'Mech design across the macro-cosm of 'Mech designs, and it does not. Not in the least. As for Hard Points, there's no reason those can't fit into both Firepower and Defense aspects. For lower hard points, anything "abdomen"-level and below is considered Defense, and anything above goes into Firepower, period.

As for the formula for weapons...

Firepower (Keep in mind these are values I'm just pulling out of thin air, but is a taste of what I have in mind.)
Base weapon value (per unique weapon): ((Optimum Range * (Damage/Heat)) + ((Maximum Range/10) * (10/Cooldown))

Ballistic Weapon: ((Base weapon value/5) * Tons of Ammunition)
Advanced Zoom Module = (Ballistic Weapon * 1.5)
AC Cooldown Quirk at 10% = (Ballistic Weapon * 1.05)
Advanced Zoom and AC Cooldown together = ((Ballistic Weapon * (.5 + .05 = multiplier of * 1.55, NOT 1.5 + 1.05 = * 2.55)), and this is ONE value applied to any number of ACs on the 'Mech. ie - If a 'Mech has 3 AC/5s on it, the ammunition tonnage would be applied to ONE Autocannon, the base values of the other two ACs added to that, and the combined quirk and module modifiers multiply against that total.

Missile Weapon: ((Base weapon value/7.5) * Tons of Ammunition)
Artemis IV FCS Module = (Missile Weapon * 1.15)
LRM Range Module 5 (+100 m range) = (Missile Weapon * 1.1)
Artemis and LRM Range together = ((Missile Weapon * (.15 + .1 = multiplier of * 1.25, NOT 1.15 + 1.1 = * 2.25)), and again this is ONE value applied to any number of LRMs on the 'Mech. ie - If a 'Mech has 3 LRM-5s on it, the ammunition tonnage would be applied to ONE LRM, the base values of the other two LRMs added to that, and the combined quirk and module modifiers multiple against that total.

These calculations are just simple examples of how modules AND quirks can be calculated into a weapon's value without having to balance a weapon against anything. The weapon values, all values in Battle Value are calculated on formula's developed for them, and don't have to be compared to anything else, period.

Now, to move forward with this example... for low-slung weapons, those at the "abdomen"-level or below, unless they are considered to be larger weapons (PPCs, Large Lasers, AC/10s and 20s, all SRMs, LRMs would NEVER go into this group, etc.) they go into the Defensive group, as they are close-in fighters. All larger weapons on low-slung hard points lose 25% of their value immediately. For high-mount weapons, they go into the Firepower group.

The Firepower aspect then has all weapon Battle Values, based on their low or high placement on the 'Mech, added together for that group.

Now, here's the deal, each of the three aspects/groups have to be calculated on an equal ceiling value, such as 500 points each, as they will be averaged together to get the overall Battle Value, and the super special equipment, modules, and quirks that cannot be classified into Defense, Firepower, and/or Mobility, are valued for what they do (example below) and then used as an additive or multiplier to the average of the three main aspects.

ECM is my example, and if it wasn't already classified into Defense, and it gave some manner of aid out to 90 meters, it would add 1.09 or 1.1 as a modifier to the other three aspects already added together. Say you had four pieces of equipment, one providing 1.09, another 1.15, another 1.05, and the fourth being 1.07 -just throwing numbers out here, again- so that you get a total of 1.36 multiplier (.09 + .15 + .05 +.07 = .36), granting 36% more Battle Value to the 'Mech, which is pretty significant, I'm sure you would agree but, then, super-special equipment is supposed to grant great values like that.

Your next question is going to be, "Well, what about the pilot? What if they don't have the opportunity to use it? What if they have the opportunity but don't?" To which I will answer simply: it does not matter. If they put the equipment on the 'Mech, it MUST be assumed they intend to use it, and the value is part of the 'Mech, taken into account WITHOUT the pilot's input. It is a generic number, period, and it is valued for the type of equipment it is, and NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Now, let's take the opposite role, here, devil's advocate, and your pilot designs the 'Mech the way they do because that's what they do with that 'Mech, that's the role they fill and, game after game after game they use the equipment; sometimes, that equipment is countered, sometimes the conditions do not exist to allow the equipment to be used properly (example follows), and sometimes the environment has an effect, but most of the time the equipment works, and helps lead the team to a win. Would you then say "it follows that the player who designed the 'Mech and used the equipment effectively deserved to have the win"?

Okay, now for my current in-game example... all of us, all the time, get the Spotting Bonus, right? At least ONE Spotting Bonus and, more often than not MULTIPLE spotting bonuses in each match, right? That aids in the calculation of our Match Score at the end, am I correct? Spotting bonus does not change because a pilot is better or worse, it triggers when it's supposed to and gives that bonus each time, and that is precisely what that super-special equipment would do.

Knowing that I am correct, because I have paid a great deal of attention to how this game works, for a LONG TIME, now, I will continue on with my example of the super-special equipment, above. The Spotting Bonus is static, and you get that bonus EACH TIME the in-game condition trigger is met to do so, right? It would be the very same with ANY equipment used in the game.

As you can see, from this simple example, the Battle Value of one weapon in the game has NOTHING to do with ANY of the other weapons in the game, period. Each weapon is calculated on a fixed scale, each item on a 'Mech is calculated on a fixed scale within one of the three main aspects, which ARE then further modified by the game-determined PS/GS of the only person in the game that can pilot THAT 'Mech from THAT Mechlab, the player who OWNS THAT 'Mech, and may also be modified by a multiplier derived from any non-sortable super-special gear, to get a total, which is calculated, WITHOUT the input of ANYTHING ELSE related to ANYONE ELSE in the game, when the Save button is clicked in the Mechlab.

Then, once that player, who has either not played any games, or whose game-determined PS/GS will have been modified since the 'Mech was last developed in the Mechlab, meaning the new PS/GS modifies the BV, now, taking exactly one-half second to re-calculate the overall BV of that 'Mech, is then dumped into a bucket with fellow players, whether friends, fellow mercenaries, loyalists, or PUGs, WITHOUT consideration for tonnage or PSR, as it's already been calculated into the 'Mech's BV and placed in the bucket, and another bucket is found with ONLY the total BV to consider on both teams, to either reach parity in BV with one another, or to hover within 5% of a game-set or commander-agreed maximum setting for Battle Value bucket total, and then they go play.

That is actually eliminating everything BUT Battle Value, for each 'Mech of which is calculated IN THE MECHLAB prior to being added to the bucket, and you can have Elite, Veteran, Regular, Green, and Cadet quality players on the same team, fighting against another team sharing the same thing.

The ONLY PROBLEM IS... and you brought this up, earlier, Wintersdark, is PGIs inability to overcome the even teams problem that most other games have overcome years ago. Whether it's CryEngine 3, or it's the server configuration as given them by the CryEngine folks, or it's just complete ineptitude in THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT for PGI, I can't tell, but it's something they need to work on so we can fight with uneven teams.

AND THEN.... guess what...? The Clans could be restored to their astronomical values, and we could fight 5 - 7 Clan 'Mechs vs 12 Inner Sphere 'Mechs and have a damned even game to go with it. PSR and Tonnage are NOT even, right now, balance is non-existant, the match-maker still makes mistakes, and I've personally seen it at least once a night whenever I play, and I've now pretty much stopped playing MWO. It's only been a couple of days, and I DO love the simulator, but the lack of any real development on this game is alarming to me, and I try to come up with ways I know for a fact will fix it, and all I get is arguments from people -I'm not saying you, necessarily, Wintersdark- who would rather see this game shut down than continue on. If people want to continue to see an ever-decreasing community, which means less money going into this game, then we need to stay with the ******** we have in the game right now: a PSR system that uses benchmarks and doesn't rate people correctly, a non-3/3/3/3 tonnage-based matching system that pits whomever against whomever just willy-nilly, and the same old god-damned grind every single time we play, then they should continue to argue with me.

At least you, Wintersdark, propose problems to overcome, opportunities to grasp onto, and have hope for a solution, just like me.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 02 May 2016 - 03:47 PM.

[Requiemking]

Karl Streiger, on 29 April 2016 - 06:11 AM, said:

Issue is - Clans OP - IS compares Orion with TImberWolf or Catapract with Ebon Jaguar - and when its IS OP they compare Summoners with Thunderbolts. (i hate IS and clan alike - so i'm not biassed right?)
They take the best from one side and compare it with the worst from the other.
But the truth is its not Clan vs IS - its IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan were you have to look first.

Ok then, lets compare the Clan Mist Lynx (currently the lowest weight Clan mech) with the IS Commando (The IS mech with comparable tonnage). We'll be comparing the Champion variants for this exercise (As they have comparable roles in combat).

A newly bought Commando 1D(C) possesses an STD 200 engine with a top speed of 129.6, Endosteel structure, Ferro-Fibrous armor, Two double heat sinks, eight engine heatsinks, four hardpoints (Two missile, two energy), comes stock with two medium lasers and an SRM 4 with 1.5 tons of ammo, an armor rating of 161/178, and a firepower rating of 18.6/250.

A newly bought Mist Lynx Prime(C) comes with an XL 175 engine with a top speed of 113.4, Endosteel structure, Ferro-Fibrous armor, five double heat sinks, seven engine heatsinks, four energy hardpoints, comes stock with four Clan small pulse lasers, an armor rating of 178/178, and has a firepower rating of 24/250.

What I see here is that the Commando, while having less initial firepower than the Mist Lynx, can easily out run it, has far more versatility, and slightly better weapons, albeit having to worry about ammo in the missile launcher. It doesn't help that the Commando is far cheaper as well.

Edited by Requiemking, 02 May 2016 - 07:15 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Requiemking, on 02 May 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

What I see here is that the Commando, while having less initial firepower than the Mist Lynx, can easily out run it, has far more versatility, and slightly better weapons, albeit having to worry about ammo in the missile launcher. It doesn't help that the Commando is far cheaper as well.

The Mist Lynx comes with BAP and JumpJets - so you have a Combat Mech "Commando" and you have the scout "Lynx". But I'm not a Light Jock who can tell you if those additional 4 tons are worth or just balast (considering how those 3tons of JJs work - more a kind of balast)

Maybe without fixed JJs and BAP - and a 200 XL the Lynx would obvious be the better Mech?


About the price - well this a thorn in my eye since Closed Beta - but its incredible highlight is the Gargoyle

[Lily from animove]

The Smoking Man, on 29 April 2016 - 05:49 AM, said:

Kay I hope you understand that people don't like to read a wall of text and probably skipped over 98% of what you wrote. I refused to read it because it was a page of keyboard vomit.

Short and sweet point is... I hear IS complain about balance, I hear Clan complain for the same reasons. That either cancels itself out, or we have some real balance issues.

Would it be unreasonable to have an outside developers opinion on the matter? A fresh set of eyes to look at it, you know... to eliminate confirmation bias.

Maybe if you would spent time reading walls you would get a better picture. Most people speaking about the balance issues have to post a wall, because there is no way to proeprly speak about it wihtout going into details, All those claiming about imbalance throwing short sentences around are those throwing around barroom cliches. Balance issues are on chassis level, not on IS vs clanlevel. It always was like that.

[Digital_Angel]

Requiemking, on 02 May 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

Ok then, lets compare the Clan Mist Lynx (currently the lowest weight Clan mech) with the IS Commando (The IS mech with comparable tonnage). We'll be comparing the Champion variants for this exercise (As they have comparable roles in combat).

.....

What I see here is that the Commando, while having less initial firepower than the Mist Lynx, can easily out run it, has far more versatility, and slightly better weapons, albeit having to worry about ammo in the missile launcher. It doesn't help that the Commando is far cheaper as well.

Don't forget that when comparing Champion builds, IS had to pay for those Endo and Ferro upgrades and often for DHS and CASE if they want it above the initial purchase price, while Clan mechs come with DHS and CASE including and almost always have Endo and/or Ferro.


I pilot both Clan and IS on a regular basis, although have not done FW as clan to this point so admit that I am not the end all be all guru. Phase 3 got here before my mech bay shuffle got me to the Clans. My findings since the MAJOR balance changes several months ago is that the sides are roughly balanced now, but have completely different styles.

Clan tends to be much hotter, but still has weight/slot advantages on almost every weapon system and usually still has better range on most comparable weapons. The onmipods also let people mix and match hard points much more and you see things like the Cheetah or Shadow Cat almost NEVER being run without ECM regardless of weapons loadouts. Clan also has a serious advantage in Endo and Ferro costing half the slots, at the expense of not being able to change them. Similarly clan still have a serious survival advantage on Clan XL engines at the expense of engines usually being fixed. Most ranged poke battles still seem to favor clans. The higher alpha potential of many clan mechs because of weapons that are lighter and take less slots plays well to Alpha, run and cool, repeat play style.

IS has less heat issues, but unless using a mech that specifically has range quirks gets out ranged and out gunned by Clan mechs most of the time. You have better control over Endo, Ferro, and Engine loadouts, but brawling with an IS XL is usually a death sentence except for good light pilots. IS usually wins by either getting in close and pressing clan mechs until the heat advantage wins out or sticking to mechs specifically quirked really well for their builds.

Take any mech and try to play to its weaknesses instead of its strengths and you will have a hard time. Are there specific mechs that are over or under powered on both sides? YES!!! Do I see a major balance issues currently as a whole comparing best mechs to best mechs and lesser mechs to lesser mechs? No.

Edited by LadyDanams, 03 May 2016 - 05:55 AM.

[Requiemking]

LadyDanams, on 03 May 2016 - 05:53 AM, said:

Don't forget that when comparing Champion builds, IS had to pay for those Endo and Ferro upgrades and often for DHS and CASE if they want it above the initial purchase price, while Clan mechs come with DHS and CASE including and almost always have Endo and/or Ferro.


I pilot both Clan and IS on a regular basis, although have not done FW as clan to this point so admit that I am not the end all be all guru. Phase 3 got here before my mech bay shuffle got me to the Clans. My findings since the MAJOR balance changes several months ago is that the sides are roughly balanced now, but have completely different styles.

Clan tends to be much hotter, but still has weight/slot advantages on almost every weapon system and usually still has better range on most comparable weapons. The onmipods also let people mix and match hard points much more and you see things like the Cheetah or Shadow Cat almost NEVER being run without ECM regardless of weapons loadouts. Clan also has a serious advantage in Endo and Ferro costing half the slots, at the expense of not being able to change them. Similarly clan still have a serious survival advantage on Clan XL engines at the expense of engines usually being fixed. Most ranged poke battles still seem to favor clans. The higher alpha potential of many clan mechs because of weapons that are lighter and take less slots plays well to Alpha, run and cool, repeat play style.

IS has less heat issues, but unless using a mech that specifically has range quirks gets out ranged and out gunned by Clan mechs most of the time. You have better control over Endo, Ferro, and Engine loadouts, but brawling with an IS XL is usually a death sentence except for good light pilots. IS usually wins by either getting in close and pressing clan mechs until the heat advantage wins out or sticking to mechs specifically quirked really well for their builds.

Take any mech and try to play to its weaknesses instead of its strengths and you will have a hard time. Are there specific mechs that are over or under powered on both sides? YES!!! Do I see a major balance issues currently as a whole comparing best mechs to best mechs and lesser mechs to lesser mechs? No.

Ok, but what I would like to know is, what logic did PGI use to justify nerfing the Clan trial mechs so badly? Seriously, these are the mechs that the newbs use to get acquainted with the game, but why would anyone want to buy a Clan mech when the trial mechs that are supposed to be showcasing what these things can do are so pathetically weak that you are never going to win any battles with them? It doesn't help when, before these stupid champion variants became the de-facto trial mechs, the clan trial mechs weren't that bad and represented a range of combat styles. The Mist Lynx is an especially good example on what not to make a trial mech. The Mist Lynx Prime that was in the number two slot for Clan Light trial mechs was actually a good mech. Yes, you had to worry about your ammo count, but you had a good all-range combatant with some pretty good speed. Now? You have a pathetic excuse of a brawler who doesn't have the speed to pull of that type of fighting.

Edited by Requiemking, 03 May 2016 - 09:55 AM.