129 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 September 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

The idea of every match being perfectly even sounds really dry and boring.

Oh, boy, you are absolutely right on that one... and NO WHERE IN MY POST DID I SAY YOU WOULD FIGHT AGAINST THE SAME SKILL LEVEL PILOTS AS YOU. In fact, PSR-modified BV would allow Elites, Veterans, Regulars, and Green Pilots to be all thrown together, as long as the overall Battle Value for the match fell within 5% of the other teams total values.

Reading is fundamental.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 14 September 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 September 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

Luckily no system is going to be able to predict player skill that accurately in this day in age.

Oh, and I had to re-read this part a couple of times before anything could come to mind... I've been up since 4 and working since 6; what do you want?

Jack, the system MWO already has built in, for hit percentages of weapons, etc., is already accurate enough to do what I was talking about in my post previous to my first answer to you. It simply needs to be applied as a convertive percentage bonus or penalty to the Battle Value of whatever 'Mech is piloted, with whatever weapons.

If you've played the Tabletop at all, you know that Battle Value was used to make teams as even as possible and, if you had differences in pilot scores for the game, those would modify that BV, and all would be set to a particular BV total limit. The VERY same thing could happen here. In fact, a whole new culture of trackers and BV limiters for games could be developed to help people in selecting 'Mechs. Have the PSR-modified BV for all of your 'Mechs listed in the MechLab, so when Commander's negotiate a BV limit, a notification -such as the 'Mech class percentages under the Launch button, now- of the total BV remaining for the side, and how much is available per pilot for those pilots who've yet to select a 'Mech, are displayed to help players build a balanced team.

Hell, even more than that... You have each pilot on a team select which weight class of 'Mech they want to take, and then you begin filling slots with Lights, followed by Mediums, then Heavies, then Assaults and, once a weight class has been filled, the remaining bucket value is split among the remaining pilots, and so on, until the Assault(s) have been filled. That's the way it was done in the tabletop, and there's no reason it couldn't work, here.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 13 September 2015 - 08:51 PM, said:

No, sir, that wasn't it... the problem wasn't in asymmetric teams, it was the fact they could have all numbers on a team except 11; so, 1 to 10, and 12, but not 11 'Mechs. To the best of my knowledge, they only said they couldn't do anything with asymmetric teams; they also said they couldn't do what they're trying to do, now, and they've said a lot of things they couldn't, or wouldn't do, and they've been figuring things out a bit at a time and getting it implemented.

I'm not certain what it would take to make asymmetric teams, but I have a feeling it's similar to what they've been doing to relax all of the controlling nonsense code they've had, thus far, and are now working to 'relax' or get rid of altogether. Basically, and all of this is my opinion, but I think all but what I'm about to say has been informed opinion, PGIs programmers have programmed themselves into a corner on a lot of different issues, but bit-by-bit, baby-step-by-baby-step, they are learning how to get out of that. They've already come out of a lot of different problems they said they couldn't do anything with, and the game has been improving, as a result, and that's pretty damned awesome for those programmers and engineers working the problems.

However, it's the leadership of PGI I have a real problem with, as they continually say they are paying attention -while a few things this community has wanted, for the better, have happened, the most important things have not-, while their actions scream otherwise. Now, I will say kudos to them for finally starting to look at the balance issue from a different perspective, but having said that, their change in perspective has not gone far enough. They need to push the envelope, get outside of the upper-right corner of that box and really see where they can go, rather than moving from one point of stagnation to a slightly higher point of stagnation. If they will do that, and turn the internal limitations of Elo and Tonnage to the external sky-is-the-limit numbers that would be afforded by a PSR-modified Battle Value and buckets for teams, they could hand limitation controls over to the Commander's of the teams taking place in Community Warfare, could open the types of games available for play from the one mode they have, now, to the board-game and computer-game based contracts, so the limitations are based solely on two factors, the type of game being played, and the limitations further agreed to by the Commanders.

In the solo/PUG queue this would mean matching buckets within 5% of one another, where there could still be 12 'Mechs per team on the field, but for every Elite player on the field you would need a Green one, for every Veteran a Regular on the same team, and then you deal with limitations of PSR-modified Battle Value for those 'Mechs. So, if you had a bunch of Elite players on one side, they might all be required to take Medium 'Mechs, while the other team would consist of a group of people whose total PSR-modified BV falls within 5% of the other team, but the chosen bucket solo players will be chosen quickly to help outfit the teams as they are launched, with whomever launched the team first -they won't know it, of course-, just like they do, now, but without all the complex nonsense that has gone before.

I swear, PGI works so hard at applying band-****, it's like they are forcibly pushing away from doing anything that makes sense or sticks to the actual established fabric of the game.

I remember very clearly when they released clans that they said they couldn't implement 10v12 correctly. Doesn't mean they can't do it now, but at the same time, I have seen no mention of them finding a way around it.

mechbane, on 14 September 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

wow moaning that the weapon quirks are removed! seriously! if you need weapon quirks to keep pace with the game and player skill levels then you are a bad pilot and should quit playing instead of trying to run as a overpowered solo player in a team focused game! the new system is a god send and will bring the game back inline with how its meant to be I.E, light mechs as scouts and not 10 laser shooting, back stabbing, 1 hit alpha strike nukes!
LRM boats should be scout dependent, mediums should be work horses and assaults should be the slow, well armed damage dealers,
as it stands im seeing assaults scouting, mediums packing more punch then assaults and lights ripping teams apart alone! this is an insult to battletech and its die hard fans,
so please stop moaning about quirks you should not have in the first place and play the game as it was intended to be played!!
some mechs are by far better then others and some mechs are better then others with the right pilot in control, skill comes from practice so instead of raging about your light not being able to kill a direwhale alone anymore, go and practice in said light and do your job as a light (scout, cap, narc and tagger) or just uninstall and let the rest of us enjoy the game!

I for one can not wait for a battle of strategic thought rather then a C.O.D clone!

No, we need weapon quirks to match OP clan mechs that carry 1 ton 1 slot LLs. Please, come and show us how to pilot a mech properly when your weapons deal half the damage at half the range and your mech is moving at slower speeds, so you can't even dictate engagement range.

If you're blind and can't see an enemy mech at 2000+ meters, then yes, the sensor quirks might help you, but for those of us with 2 functioning eye balls, sensor range quirks are virtually useless, especially since the ONLY weapon system that can bebenfit from them is LRMs, and LRMs are not worth their tonnage, and slots in dog food.

Weapon quirks helped bridge the IS vs Clan balance gap.

Also, you really shouldn't be bringing up skill when your top 2 complaints are LRMs and lights. Guess no one taught you to aim for the legs, and use cover?

On top of it. It's hilarious to see a clan player talk about how weapon quirks are unnecessary, and we should all "l2p". Let me jump into my DWF-Vassago, and you hop into a King Crab, and let's see how long your quirked assault mech lasts against my "nerfed" assault mech. I'll actually save you the effort. The Answer is about 9 seconds, TOPS.


If you want, we can go down the weight classes, and repeat the experience. Only place where it gets kinda close is lights, with the FS9 vs the ACH. Every other weight class, the clans have 1 or 2 mechs that absolutely dominate.

Oooooo, you know what? We should do it in the test server where there are no weapon quirks for IS, and let's see how long you last in an IS mech, because I'll bet cashy money, it'll be even less.

How would you like that 7 MPL TDR with a max range of 220? Adorable isn't it? I can bring an Ebon Jag (same weight) with twice the firepower and more than twice the range, to kill you before you even get one section on my mech stripped of armor.

I can go on and on about why exactly you really shouldn't bring up any discussion of "skill" in your position, but I think this explains the point well enough.

[Threat Doc]

IraqiWalker, on 14 September 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

I remember very clearly when they released clans that they said they couldn't implement 10v12 correctly. Doesn't mean they can't do it now, but at the same time, I have seen no mention of them finding a way around it.

That's right, I remember that, now. Thanks. If PGI goes to fix something, the likelihood we're going to get any lead time at all is slim and none, up until about 72 hours before the actual patch release. That being said, I have no doubt whatsoever, that some smart engineer or programmer, or a team of them working together, will solve that issue, soon enough.

Quote

No, we need weapon quirks to match OP clan mechs that carry 1 ton 1 slot LLs. Please, come and show us how to pilot a mech properly when your weapons deal half the damage at half the range and your mech is moving at slower speeds, so you can't even dictate engagement range.

This is something that can be balanced through PSR-modified BV. Clan weapons, especially if all weapons were set back to the numbers they're supposed to have from the tabletop game, would have a much higher BV, in and of themselves, than their Inner Sphere counterparts. Higher BVs to the Clan 'Mechs, due to their smaller, lighter, stronger components, means fewer of those on the field to achieve a balanced-BV fight.

Quote

...the ONLY weapon system that can bebenfit from them is LRMs, and LRMs are not worth their tonnage, and slots in dog food.

Hey, hey... LRMs are not too bad... they're not supposed to be a direct-kill weapon, they're supposed to be for suppression and additional support for spotting 'Mechs that are in the fight deep. LRMs are good, right now.

Quote

Weapon quirks helped bridge the IS vs Clan balance gap.

Uselessly, yes. The dog food you were talking about LRMs fitting into is what PGI took a TON of time to create and balance, when they could actually have been creating and balancing a system that would actually work, point-for-point.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 14 September 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

That's right, I remember that, now. Thanks. If PGI goes to fix something, the likelihood we're going to get any lead time at all is slim and none, up until about 72 hours before the actual patch release. That being said, I have no doubt whatsoever, that some smart engineer or programmer, or a team of them working together, will solve that issue, soon enough.

This is something that can be balanced through PSR-modified BV. Clan weapons, especially if all weapons were set back to the numbers they're supposed to have from the tabletop game, would have a much higher BV, in and of themselves, than their Inner Sphere counterparts. Higher BVs to the Clan 'Mechs, due to their smaller, lighter, stronger components, means fewer of those on the field to achieve a balanced-BV fight.

Hey, hey... LRMs are not too bad... they're not supposed to be a direct-kill weapon, they're supposed to be for suppression and additional support for spotting 'Mechs that are in the fight deep. LRMs are good, right now.

Uselessly, yes. The dog food you were talking about LRMs fitting into is what PGI took a TON of time to create and balance, when they could actually have been creating and balancing a system that would actually work, point-for-point.

The problem with point for point matching is that you neither have the population for it, nor the game mode for it.

As it stands right now, for a proper BV system, one that includes even the pilot score per chassis, to function, we need a lot more players, we need asymmetric matching, and we need more IS pilots than clan pilots. So far, we have none of those 3 pre-requisites.

So, since we're stuck with a 12 v 12 system for now. How about we actually balance with what we can, and work for the 12 v 12 system, instead of just sitting there watching the whole thing burn down saying "This would have been better if 10 v 12 was around". We can either put out the fires, and fix the darn thing, or sit there and wait for the whole thing to burn down, or for superman to show up and fix it. Last I checked, superman isn't real, so my vote is to put the fire out ourselves.

In this case, that means accepting that asymmetric teams aren't happening any time soon, and we should balance for 12 v 12. When/if asymmetric teams arrive, we can rebalance easily for that.

TL;DR: Let's work with what we have, not what we dream of having. Since it isn't there to work with.

[Threat Doc]

IraqiWalker, on 14 September 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

The problem with point for point matching is that you neither have the population for it, nor the game mode for it.

IraqiWalker, forgive me for the harshness of what I'm about to say, but that's the most asinine thing I've heard all day, and I've had a rough day. PGI does this every single day, even if badly, with Elo based on weight classes. The BV system would not only make population a non-issue, it would give a level of freedom to the community that should have been granted in the first place. Instead of matching players in various sections of the Elo arc, whether Light, Medium, Heavy, and Assault, ~OR~ Green, Regular, Veteran, or Elite, all players can be matched into these buckets, now.

Quote

As it stands right now, for a proper BV system, one that includes even the pilot score per chassis, to function, we need a lot more players, we need asymmetric matching, and we need more IS pilots than clan pilots. So far, we have none of those 3 pre-requisites.

I think you're completely, entirely missing how Battle Value works, and I'm not sure I know how to explain it to you, especially if it's TL:DR for you.

Quote

So, since we're stuck with a 12 v 12 system for now. How about we actually balance with what we can, and work for the 12 v 12 system, instead of just sitting there watching the whole thing burn down saying "This would have been better if 10 v 12 was around". We can either put out the fires, and fix the darn thing, or sit there and wait for the whole thing to burn down, or for superman to show up and fix it. Last I checked, superman isn't real, so my vote is to put the fire out ourselves.

Oh, well, it's too late for that, then. Battle Value should have been used from the outset, and then Paul and crew wouldn't have had to spend thousands of man-hours trying to balance the whole damn thing.

Don't stop dreaming on me, now, man!!! Is there a level of practicality that has to be met, here... sure. However, if PGI would have gone the way with this system the way they said they were going to do in the first place, and had they used what ALL OF US were screaming they needed to use from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation; rather, we would be killing one-another on virtual battlefields, from BattleTech tabletop and MechWarrior/Commander computer game veterans all the way up to brand new steam players, that PGI would have to have built servers rapidly.

Quote

In this case, that means accepting that asymmetric teams aren't happening any time soon, and we should balance for 12 v 12. When/if asymmetric teams arrive, we can rebalance easily for that.

Not only do I not accept that, I forcibly and vociferously reject that. Look at what PGI HAVE accomplished over the past thirty-six months, and look at the problems they have rapidly -and some not-so-rapidly- solved, and for which the game is 100% improved over what it was this time last year. Now, why in the hell couldn't they introduce a solution for it, tomorrow... why do I have to accept ANYTHING, at this point. Had you asked me eighteen months ago, or perhaps even nine months ago, whether I thought PGI could make the sorts of changes and improvements they've made, I would have told you, in my extraordinary irritation, what you could do with your optimism. Now, however, I KNOW they can build these things the way they SHOULD be built to make the game free and better for players the world over; hence, my annoyance with the lack of institutionalization of anything into this game that would ACTUALLY work better than what they're doing, now.

This is it for me, for tonight, at the very least, as I have a Play-by-Forum game I need to make the next move on, and it's likely to take me a while to complete.

[Speedy Pinky]

I have test it with Arctic Cheetah on Testground and its OK.
Some strange things like i can lock up a mech near instantly from 800m and need 3-4 sec. when i stand in front of it ...
I managed to killed one before i have a lock.
That meen that Mechs with Streaks have a problem ...
Fix one problem and you get a another ... That hard to solve.

Why they use not the skill system that is useless now.
Like in X-Com where you can choose from 2 different skills what you like.
Will i have -10% Heat or -10% Weapon duration (as example)... and so make a mech that fits to my playstyle.
The not so good mechs get 12% and good mechs only 4% so you can fine tuning it there.

[Threat Doc]

Right, I wonder if any of the quirks that will, most likely, be remaining for the 'Mechs, or additional ones, could be used as part of the pilot and tech trees we've been told were coming for the past two years, now? Instead of completely removing all of the quirks, perhaps some quirks could be static to the 'Mech, some quirks could be earned or purchased through tech trees, some through the pilot trees... I know I had something more to say, here, but my brain is not awake, yet. I don't drink coffee, either, and I'm out of Mountain Dew, dangit, hehe.

[Tarl Cabot]

RapierE01, on 12 September 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

Am i right that this is only the "Sensors and Movement" Phase and the "Weapons and Equipment" Phase will come after this?

That is partially the issue with the current PTS, the lack of communication, providing only partial statements. PGI posted their game plan earlier this year advising of the re-quirking and the release date being 9-22-15 (and the search engine is a pita). They did include the quirk set distinctions with that original post, but PGI failed to include that information (or any updates pertaining to it) and how PTS would be broken down. Tis not like everyone has it book-marked or such.

It is like many things, that information needed to be reiterated/updated when the current PTS was released, including the basic steps to get to the final release. Since that did not happen, and sadly with the previous track record, people have been over-reacting.

Or to say, those within PGI may have spoken enough about it among themselves and how they were going to approach the PTS but forgot that the community as a whole was not involved in that, they did not have at least refreshed outline of how this was going to work. The community does not need to know ALL the details, but enough details (without having to look for it in older posts) on how it was going to be approached, eg All/majority of mechs are being reset to default, pre-quirk settings with no or very small quirks all around for both Clan/IS - Sensor/Information quirks is the first focus, followed by xx then xx quirk lines.

Then provide an example, such as the major laser/energy quirks followed by the ghost heat change from firing more than 2 IS Large Lasers to 3 LLasers without changing the laser/energy quirks. Or the introduction of the Cheetah with a switchable ECM pod but with quirks (before the most recent patch) similar to IS light mechs such as Firestarter, etc. And isn't ECM part of the Sensor/Information quirk line?

Also some examples of what appeared to be extreme sensor/info quirks, which most weren't when applied to what was being quirked, somethings just needed a different way to show the quirks.

In the end though, especially since this was an open public test, more information should have been communicated and refreshed. Basically, the community was going into the current PTS assuming the mechs would have their quirks AS WELL AS sensor quirks, whereas PGI released it assuming the community KNEW going in that 99% of the offensive/defensive quirks had been rolled back to minimum or none/default.

Edit

Just to add, there is the link in the 1st post. There is talk about the quirks needing to be re-balance/current quirk system not working as intended, it is the first pass, etc but nothing to indicate removal of the current set of quirks (basically being reset to a default status) except the unspoken info revolving out the post itself/not working as intended/etc. PGI should have said it plainly the PTS mechs would basically be non-quirked except for the target testing, the Sensor/Info section.

Quote

TL;DR:
* You should read the above.
* The current quirk system is not working as intended.
* The new system brings 'Mechs much more closely in line with each other while adding role and information warfare in a much deeper meaning to each 'Mech.
* This is the first pass at numbers and your feedback is requested.
* There are bugs and missing information elements but they will be addressed in a later build.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 September 2015 - 06:25 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 14 September 2015 - 07:01 PM, said:

IraqiWalker, forgive me for the harshness of what I'm about to say, but that's the most asinine thing I've heard all day, and I've had a rough day. PGI does this every single day, even if badly, with Elo based on weight classes. The BV system would not only make population a non-issue, it would give a level of freedom to the community that should have been granted in the first place. Instead of matching players in various sections of the Elo arc, whether Light, Medium, Heavy, and Assault, ~OR~ Green, Regular, Veteran, or Elite, all players can be matched into these buckets, now.

I think you're completely, entirely missing how Battle Value works, and I'm not sure I know how to explain it to you, especially if it's TL:DR for you.

Oh, well, it's too late for that, then. Battle Value should have been used from the outset, and then Paul and crew wouldn't have had to spend thousands of man-hours trying to balance the whole damn thing.

Don't stop dreaming on me, now, man!!! Is there a level of practicality that has to be met, here... sure. However, if PGI would have gone the way with this system the way they said they were going to do in the first place, and had they used what ALL OF US were screaming they needed to use from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation; rather, we would be killing one-another on virtual battlefields, from BattleTech tabletop and MechWarrior/Commander computer game veterans all the way up to brand new steam players, that PGI would have to have built servers rapidly.

Not only do I not accept that, I forcibly and vociferously reject that. Look at what PGI HAVE accomplished over the past thirty-six months, and look at the problems they have rapidly -and some not-so-rapidly- solved, and for which the game is 100% improved over what it was this time last year. Now, why in the hell couldn't they introduce a solution for it, tomorrow... why do I have to accept ANYTHING, at this point. Had you asked me eighteen months ago, or perhaps even nine months ago, whether I thought PGI could make the sorts of changes and improvements they've made, I would have told you, in my extraordinary irritation, what you could do with your optimism. Now, however, I KNOW they can build these things the way they SHOULD be built to make the game free and better for players the world over; hence, my annoyance with the lack of institutionalization of anything into this game that would ACTUALLY work better than what they're doing, now.

This is it for me, for tonight, at the very least, as I have a Play-by-Forum game I need to make the next move on, and it's likely to take me a while to complete.

Look, you're free to be upset, or disagree. But you haven't made a single example explaining how your version of point by point BV matching will improve anything. I simply said the system could work, but we need some hard restrictions in it, because we should avoid matches where tier 5 players run into tier 1 players. Those hard restrictions can't be employed right now, because we don't have the population for it.

All the rest of your post is either hopeful rants, or I don't know what. I'm not against that, but I work with what's there. PGI have made NO statements about asymmetric teams, which force me to assume that they have no progress there. So I will work from that premise. If they end up making progress, cool, we lost nothing. If they really have made no progress on it, we're at least moving on schedule.

Look: I'm not into day dreaming. I'm more pragmatic. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst kind of guy. We lost nothing if we work from my perspective, where we rely on what's already on the ground, because if they have no progress on what you're hoping for, we're already fixing the issues we have now. If they made any progress, we can adjust for them.

In contrast, hoping they have made progress, and working from that standpoint has no chance of turning a positive result, unless they actually made progress, and we have ZERO evidence to believe that.

I trust they are doing great work. I've seen, and praised them a lot for what they managed to achieve over the past year and a half. HOWEVER, that is no reason for me to start assuming things, they never brought up.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 15 September 2015 - 05:56 PM.

[Threat Doc]

IraqiWalker, on 15 September 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

Look, you're free to be upset, or disagree. But you haven't made a single example explaining how your version of point by point BV matching will improve anything. I simply said the system could work, but we need some hard restrictions in it, because we should avoid matches where tier 5 players run into tier 1 players. Those hard restrictions can't be employed right now, because we don't have the population for it.

How hard is it to understand that if you have four 'Mechs at 1,000 BV each, you need to face them off against a total of 4,000 BV for a team?

How hard is it to understand that each component on a 'Mech can be given certain points, armor, internal structure, weapons, everything can have points assigned to it, and the total of those components, in offensive, defensive, and special equipment value totals, can be easily totaled. On saving the 'Mech, the BV is modified by the pilot's overall PSR, by a percentage penalty or bonus total, and that modified BV is static until the player makes other changes.

When a player selects that 'Mech, the static BV from their last save is added to a bucket with twelve other players in their static-BV-saved 'Mechs, and 'Mechs on the other team have their static-BV-saved 'Mechs to their bucket, until the BVs on each team fall within 5% of one another, and players may be swapped out from either side to help make that number up. Teams that are together stay together, but solo players can easily be swapped out.

Now, follow this for a second...
Right now, with Elo slash PSR in play, we're limited to a range of 2300 points, for EVERYONE in the game, and it's a limitation that is absolutely bass-ackwards. Now, imagine being able to negotiate a fight, with an opponent commander, where you're not limited to 2300 points, but you are limited only by what you and the opponent commander agree on.

Your first question is most likely, "Well, why couldn't they do that with tonnage?" My answer is simple... if there were an MWO-calibrated BV system, I will guarantee you right now that I could develop a 50-ton 'Mech that can easily take out the designs of most who put together an 80-ton 'Mech. In the match-maker, when it's only tonnage and Elo/PSR taken into account, my 50-ton 'Mech can body slam your 80-ton 'Mech without my having to even really fight all that hard, because that's what the 'Mech is designed to do. However, if you put my 50-ton 'Mech, and your 80-ton 'Mech, in the game BY BATTLE VALUE rather than TONNAGE, then the system can give you help by placing another 'Mech and pilot on your team that can help even out the Battle Value.

Now, think about it for a minute... I hear crying about facing various tier pilots off against one another, but if you were working with PSR-modified BV, that honestly would not be a concern. Is PSR-modded BV the answer to absolutely everything? No, but it would bring the game closer to having the answers it actually needs.

Imagine being able to play a recon mission, where the attacking team -those performing the recon- are allowed to take 'Mechs that are only 35 tons or less, but the number of 'Mechs taken is determined by the Commanders who agree on a total Battle Value for each team. The defending commander could then select any 'Mechs they wanted for the fight, under the Battle Value, to handle the Recon incursion. What about a short raid, downloading some important intelligence, rescuing a prisoner or kidnapping a scientist, destroying a water purification facility, decoying some bad guys away so another mission can take place. Imagine the types of victory conditions that could be set, the requirements of the various missions, freedom to play BattleTech, rather than the severe restrictions being played, now.

You're talking about having a system with heavy restrictions, that we need heavy controls, but in reality we need to go the opposite way, completely, in this game, to make it truly competitive, to actually make it balanced. You CAN NOT do that with tonnage and Elo/PSR. PSR is PART of the solution, but not even the best part of it.

The rest was TL:DR. Sorry. The only thing I felt made sense was your very first paragraph. If you can't get what I've said here, and before this post, then you're not going to get it, and that's not my fault, or my problem. Good luck.

Sorry, I'm channeling Tony Stark tonight... make of that what you will.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 15 September 2015 - 07:57 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

How hard is it to understand that if you have four 'Mechs at 1,000 BV each, you need to face them off against a total of 4,000 BV for a team?

How hard is it to understand that each component on a 'Mech can be given certain points, armor, internal structure, weapons, everything can have points assigned to it, and the total of those components, in offensive, defensive, and special equipment value totals, can be easily totaled. On saving the 'Mech, the BV is modified by the pilot's overall PSR, by a percentage penalty or bonus total, and that modified BV is static until the player makes other changes.

When a player selects that 'Mech, the static BV from their last save is added to a bucket with twelve other players in their static-BV-saved 'Mechs, and 'Mechs on the other team have their static-BV-saved 'Mechs to their bucket, until the BVs on each team fall within 5% of one another, and players may be swapped out from either side to help make that number up. Teams that are together stay together, but solo players can easily be swapped out.

Now, follow this for a second...
Right now, with Elo slash PSR in play, we're limited to a range of 2300 points, for EVERYONE in the game, and it's a limitation that is absolutely bass-ackwards. Now, imagine being able to negotiate a fight, with an opponent commander, where you're not limited to 2300 points, but you are limited only by what you and the opponent commander agree on.

Your first question is most likely, "Well, why couldn't they do that with tonnage?" My answer is simple... if there were an MWO-calibrated BV system, I will guarantee you right now that I could develop a 50-ton 'Mech that can easily take out the designs of most who put together an 80-ton 'Mech. In the match-maker, when it's only tonnage and Elo/PSR taken into account, my 50-ton 'Mech can body slam your 80-ton 'Mech without my having to even really fight all that hard, because that's what the 'Mech is designed to do. However, if you put my 50-ton 'Mech, and your 80-ton 'Mech, in the game BY BATTLE VALUE rather than TONNAGE, then the system can give you help by placing another 'Mech and pilot on your team that can help even out the Battle Value.

Now, think about it for a minute... I hear crying about facing various tier pilots off against one another, but if you were working with PSR-modified BV, that honestly would not be a concern. Is PSR-modded BV the answer to absolutely everything? No, but it would bring the game closer to having the answers it actually needs.

Imagine being able to play a recon mission, where the attacking team -those performing the recon- are allowed to take 'Mechs that are only 35 tons or less, but the number of 'Mechs taken is determined by the Commanders who agree on a total Battle Value for each team. The defending commander could then select any 'Mechs they wanted for the fight, under the Battle Value, to handle the Recon incursion. What about a short raid, downloading some important intelligence, rescuing a prisoner or kidnapping a scientist, destroying a water purification facility, decoying some bad guys away so another mission can take place. Imagine the types of victory conditions that could be set, the requirements of the various missions, freedom to play BattleTech, rather than the severe restrictions being played, now.

You're talking about having a system with heavy restrictions, that we need heavy controls, but in reality we need to go the opposite way, completely, in this game, to make it truly competitive, to actually make it balanced. You CAN NOT do that with tonnage and Elo/PSR. PSR is PART of the solution, but not even the best part of it.

The rest was TL:DR. Sorry. The only thing I felt made sense was your very first paragraph. If you can't get what I've said here, and before this post, then you're not going to get it, and that's not my fault, or my problem. Good luck.

Sorry, I'm channeling Tony Stark tonight... make of that what you will.

No problem there, Kay

I also think you misunderstand my position.

I'm FOR a BV system. I'm just saying with the game's current implementation, and population, it's not possible. Since it's corner stones are going to be a large population to accommodate asymmetric teams with very wide spread of mechs.

4000 BV can be 8 mechs on team 1, and 12 on team 2. The problem here is that we don't have a proper asymmetric matchmaker implemented, nor do we have news of them working on one recently.

It's why I'm saying we should balance with what we have, not what we wish we could/should have.


I would love for a proper BV system to be implemented, I worked on one for a while. The problem is that we need the population; and 30,000 players total, with maybe 6-10K online in peak hours, won't give us decent matches, there will still be massive imbalance. Because, and keep this in mind. We have to also limit the buckets by skill tier, because while technically a 4000 BV team against another 4000 BV team can have one team at 16 mechs, and the other at 12 thanks to the combined skill, and builds of the 6, that could be too lopsided for even those 6 to win, despite having great equipment, and skill, because there's too big of a difference in numbers.

[The Flying Gecko]

So, Beta 2.0 (3.0 if you want to count the current CW mode as Beta 2.0).

Yikes.

[slide]

@ Kay and Iraqi

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the reason we won't have asymmetric games was for economic reasons. Ie less than 24 players on a server designed for such isn't cost effective, ergo they won't program for an asymmetric game mode.

Personally I think that excuse was rubbish because any server that is running at less than 100% capacity could do it easily. We run asymmetric games all the time, right now, every time someone disconnects it is 12v11 or worse.

It would be a simple matter of gaming the system we currently have into launching null value players (or virtual disconnects) to balance a team in the BV system that Kay proposes.

I think it would be really cool to be able to launch into matches as a lance of good players in high BV mechs going up against a full company of lesser mechs and pilots and seeing if you could pull it off. The immersion factor would go through the roof IMO.

The only issue I can see with Kay's system is when you have 2 full teams going 12v12. Either the BV balance will be off or a period of adjustment will be required so that one team or the other can adjust their BV to match (swap mechs pilots etc). The BV system would work much better in the match maker for the solo or small group queues. I personally think any system of match making along these lines is better than what we have now.

BV I think would also have to account for teamwork, possibly including a unit Elo or PSR value, certainly if you were going to mix solo players in with groups. The value of teamwork needs to be accounted for as well as the relative value of a mech and it's pilot.

[Threat Doc]

IraqiWalker, on 15 September 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

I also think you misunderstand my position.

I'm FOR a BV system. I'm just saying with the game's current implementation, and population, it's not possible. Since it's corner stones are going to be a large population to accommodate asymmetric teams with very wide spread of mechs.

I don't believe that would be true, at all, and I'm not sure where your math would be that would support what you've said? Opening the system -rather than leaving it closed, as PGI continues to propose, even with the PSR and new 'Mech balancing- would take advantage of the smaller population, allowing everyone to participate, rather than being separated into the classes they are, now, with both weight and PSR matching.

Now, as for the troubles with getting teams too widely dispersed, I addressed that in many other threads, but have not addressed that here, yet. The highest number anyone could get would be 12; sorry, I forgot to address it.

I'm just going to say this, now... there are two things that absolutely need to be done to save this game... and that's Battle Value and an absolutely amazing marketing program. At the very best, opening the doors to Steam folks is going to stave off the inevitable for a while, and may make it so PGI can recover enough to begin bringing people back; so, Steam is not it. Battle Value will open up game modes, will allow for logical rules for those game modes, if rules are necessary at all, and will be the best possible way to even up sides.

slide, on 15 September 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

Personally I think that excuse was rubbish because any server that is running at less than 100% capacity could do it easily. We run asymmetric games all the time, right now, every time someone disconnects it is 12v11 or worse.

Agreed, but I think the problem was LAUNCHING the game with 12 v 11, not sustaining it once in-game. I'm not trying to give PGI an excuse, or an out, I'm just saying that's what I think happened.

Quote

It would be a simple matter of gaming the system we currently have into launching null value players (or virtual disconnects) to balance a team in the BV system that Kay proposes.

That could actually be brilliant, but is the problem will null-value placeholders, as it were, that they are null value? How could that be solved?

Quote

I think it would be really cool to be able to launch into matches as a lance of good players in high BV mechs going up against a full company of lesser mechs and pilots and seeing if you could pull it off. The immersion factor would go through the roof IMO.

I think the immersion factor would go far more than just facing difficult numbers; I really believe the ONLY way we're going to get all of the game modes this game truly needs, so we can have importance for BattleTech-style contracting, for strategic and tactical planning, for the units that Russ has already said PGI is doing nothing else for, for running this game like the leagues of former days -The Registry, Net BattleTech, Combat Zone, etc.- is to move into Battle Value... period. NOTHING else PGI will do, at this point, will set them up for a long-time incoming stream of money, and us for an absolutely amazing game not only in the Combat Simulator, but out of it, as well. If PGI wants to have a game and a universe its players give a **** about, this is what they HAVE to do.

Quote

The only issue I can see with Kay's system is when you have 2 full teams going 12v12. Either the BV balance will be off or a period of adjustment will be required so that one team or the other can adjust their BV to match (swap mechs pilots etc). The BV system would work much better in the match maker for the solo or small group queues. I personally think any system of match making along these lines is better than what we have now.

Okay, yes... it would take some extra time. However, if you played in NetMech 95, in any of the MechWarrior III games, when we only had Kali or Heat or MPlayer, it would take anywhere from forty-five minutes to four hours to set up for a ten-minute match. As long as players in CW understand that you're actually setting up missions that are important to taking worlds, instead of the zombie drops you have drop-after-drop-after-drop, now, with absolutely zero importance to why the world is being taken, in the first place, I think they will understand. Hell, Battle Value would even be good for adding filler players once the Commanders and attached unit members have agreed to the Battle Value totals and then unlocked the gate to allow those fillers, the Matchmaker could then pull in folks who've decided to try CW and, perhaps, get them to a place of enjoyment, where they will want to play more, or can even decide to join the unit they're playing with.

Quote

BV I think would also have to account for teamwork, possibly including a unit Elo or PSR value, certainly if you were going to mix solo players in with groups. The value of teamwork needs to be accounted for as well as the relative value of a mech and it's pilot.

I think you're absolutely right, and I think something like that could happen by counting the number of times each pilot plays with other pilots, and then the general win/loss percentage applied to those numbers of times, to determine the average percentages with each, which could then be averaged altogether, and apply a further percentage modifier to the bucket. Now, though, you're talking about getting into big numbers.

IraqiWalker and Slide... in short, I know for a fact that, not only CAN this work, what I've proposed, but were it my game, I would put my money where my mouth is, and push through to make it happen. Whether it's a pipe dream, right now, or it actually holds the humongous amount of logic I see it as having, doesn't really matter, because I see complaints, and little to the good, all over these forums, and how changes are absolutely needed. Now, of course, PGI have taken the absolute most-difficult to implement, least helpful pile of scrub-brush they possibly could have. Hey, at least they're consistent, right?

[slide]

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

That could actually be brilliant, but is the problem will null-value placeholders, as it were, that they are null value? How could that be solved?

If they must launch something, AI infantry, or a scout car or something with a BV of 1 would do. (they accidentally launched their testing bots a couple of times into live matches, it can be done)

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

However, if you played in NetMech 95

I wish, didn't even know BT existed in 95.

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

forty-five minutes to four hours to set up for a ten-minute match.

That would definitely suck. How about pre arranged queues (planets) with specific BV ranges, if your not under the max, don't queue up (would need a queue counter). Drop way under BV get a Cbill/XP bonus for over coming a superior foe. Would encourage teams to go light on their BV to try and up the rewards. (read Clan ego boost and lore specific too)

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

Hey, at least they're consistent, right?

Consistent a making things more complicated than necessary and reinventing the wheel? Yes definitely.

Edited by slide, 15 September 2015 - 11:01 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

I don't believe that would be true, at all, and I'm not sure where your math would be that would support what you've said? Opening the system -rather than leaving it closed, as PGI continues to propose, even with the PSR and new 'Mech balancing- would take advantage of the smaller population, allowing everyone to participate, rather than being separated into the classes they are, now, with both weight and PSR matching.

Now, as for the troubles with getting teams too widely dispersed, I addressed that in many other threads, but have not addressed that here, yet. The highest number anyone could get would be 12; sorry, I forgot to address it.

The thing is, all you have is belief, We know from experience that an open system won't work well. We had it in this game for several years. Simply because of how polarizing one really good player can be in a match full of mediocre players. So locks need to be implemented. On top of that, you'll need to restrict the number of queues, because for every choice you allow the players, you split the queues. Exponentially reducing the population.

For a BV system to work, you need the 3 following cornerstones:
1- Large enough population to account for the spread
2- Asymmetric teams
3- Hard locks one what BV levels can face off against other BV levels (or in this case, PSR tiers as they are implemented now)

(I realized I have a typo in my previous post, it's 6 not 16.)

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

IraqiWalker and Slide... in short, I know for a fact that, not only CAN this work, what I've proposed, but were it my game, I would put my money where my mouth is, and push through to make it happen. Whether it's a pipe dream, right now, or it actually holds the humongous amount of logic I see it as having, doesn't really matter, because I see complaints, and little to the good, all over these forums, and how changes are absolutely needed. Now, of course, PGI have taken the absolute most-difficult to implement, least helpful pile of scrub-brush they possibly could have. Hey, at least they're consistent, right?

I have no doubt you'd back your statement with action. I just don't see any evidence to support the argument that it can work with our current system. That's my whole point.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 16 September 2015 - 01:18 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Kay Wolf, on 15 September 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

Battle Value

Battle Value is a great idea...for a strategy game. For example in Starcraft1 one Protoss Zealot was worth the same as 2 Terran Marines or 4 Zerglings. That's called asymmetrical balance. And it worked brilliantly, because one player was controlling the whole army.

Would I want to play as a Zergling in a FPP game? Hell no!
That's basic human psychology.

"Researchers estimate that 5-10 percent of the U.S. population engages in sadomasochism"

Therefore i estimate 90-95% MWO players would not want to be repeatedly violated by a stronger mech. Almost nobody want's to play "the redshirt". They guy that dies at the beginning, with little to no chance to win a 1vs1 fight.
The opposite is also true: curb-stomping underpowered robots gets boring rather fast. That's the reason the top units don't play CW anymore. They enjoy a fair fight far more than a stomp.

What is more: PGI themselves do not want asymmetrical game modes. They could have allowed us to drop in 12 Locusts in CW. They didn't. Case closed.

Edited by Kmieciu, 16 September 2015 - 02:41 AM.

[Threat Doc]

slide, on 15 September 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

I wish, didn't even know BT existed in 95.

Well, there I go dating myself, again, hehe. Being 44 gives me some different perspectives, I guess.

Quote

That would definitely suck. How about pre arranged queues (planets) with specific BV ranges, if your not under the max, don't queue up (would need a queue counter). Drop way under BV get a Cbill/XP bonus for over coming a superior foe. Would encourage teams to go light on their BV to try and up the rewards. (read Clan ego boost and lore specific too)

But, that's the point of having BV as an equalizer... Dropping more than 5% under the enemy team would almost be suicide, since BV actually takes into account a lot more, and is much more accurate.

Quote

Consistent a making things more complicated than necessary and reinventing the wheel? Yes definitely.

{thumbs up!}

IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

The thing is, all you have is belief, We know from experience that an open system won't work well. We had it in this game for several years. Simply because of how polarizing one really good player can be in a match full of mediocre players. So locks need to be implemented. On top of that, you'll need to restrict the number of queues, because for every choice you allow the players, you split the queues. Exponentially reducing the population.

Well, nooooo... I actually have experience. It might be tabletop experience, but according to the whole of the BattleTech community, the BV system not only works, it works extremely well. This is probably before your time, but I was right in the middle of all that.

Whose experience do you have that open system's won't work well in this particular game? Has there been an open system, or are you just parroting what everyone else has said? There has NEVER been an open system in MWO, and there was NO system before this one. Just from your writing, you still don't get what I'm talking about, and you don't actually know what you're talking about, as a result. You keep saying the system will be divisive, will split the community, absolutely has to have some controls because of the low population for this game, but you have not even given me any examples about why you have to have those controls in-place, why BV will split the community? You asked me to provide examples, and I'm asking you for the same, because I can't see the MWO-based BV system, or all of the game modes I'm so adamant about being anything but a means of gathering and focusing the community. Right now, the Elo/PSR system is heavily divisive, because there is NO freedom to what 'Mechs you can take compared to what BV would allow.

Right now, the system looks to match tonnage and PSR right out of the gate as solid numbers; however, within 30 seconds, so-called "relief valves" begin to open, beginning with tonnage, then PSR, then switching from tonnage to ton-groups (light, medium, heavy, assault), and then the "age" of the group (how long the individual or group has been in the match-maker), which means you could end up, and do end up having games that are still perfectly lopsided. With BV, you might still have ONE "relief valve" for the amount of BV opening up, though the MM would already be working to construct teams that are within 5% of one-another's total team BV. This BV can consist of the entire range of pilot types and 'Mechs. An Elite pilot who takes a crap 'Mech could fight a Green pilot in a pimped out 'Mech and have a relatively even chance against one another. The difference, now though, is that the Green pilot would be teamed with others who could actually help them, and more likely would be have between one and four additional 'Mechs on their side to help against that Elite pilot with the crap 'Mech. Now, alternately, say you have an Elite pilot with a very well-designed 'Mech; are they going to find their way into a game with lower level pilots? No, they won't... the quality of pilots on the opposing team are going to have to be higher, as will be the quality of their 'Mechs; will a Tier 5 pilot face off against a Tier 1? More often than not, no.

Quote

For a BV system to work, you need the 3 following cornerstones:
1- Large enough population to account for the spread
2- Asymmetric teams
3- Hard locks one what BV levels can face off against other BV levels (or in this case, PSR tiers as they are implemented now)

Why? Provide examples of what you're talking about for #1 and #3, please?

Quote

I have no doubt you'd back your statement with action. I just don't see any evidence to support the argument that it can work with our current system. That's my whole point.

Of course it can't work with the current system, but that just means the system NEEDS to be built, regardless.

Kmieciu, on 16 September 2015 - 02:34 AM, said:

Therefore i estimate 90-95% MWO players would not want to be repeatedly violated by a stronger mech. Almost nobody want's to play "the redshirt". They guy that dies at the beginning, with little to no chance to win a 1vs1 fight.

But this is happening game-after-game, day-after-day, NOW. The system being discussed, here, would mitigate, if not eliminate, much of that.

Quote

The opposite is also true: curb-stomping underpowered robots gets boring rather fast. That's the reason the top units don't play CW anymore. They enjoy a fair fight far more than a stomp.

What is more: PGI themselves do not want asymmetrical game modes. They could have allowed us to drop in 12 Locusts in CW. They didn't. Case closed.

Yes, you're really outside of what is being spoken of, here. I don't think I could be convinced, even by people smarter than I am, that BV would not be the best system to have in this game. It's proven on the tabletop -though it may need a few tweaks- and without actually trying it for this game it cannot be proven or disproven; all I know is this... as long as PGI continues to screw around with things we actually know will not solve the problems that could be easily solved by using an open-ended numbers system that is both "good for the goose, and good for the gander". Right now, with the closed system granted by Elo/PSR, the forthcoming new 'Mech balance system, and all of the controls for the bloody few game modes we have, all you're going to continue to see is more of the same that we've had. As much as PGI's MM tries to make games as even as possible, those "relief valves" are forced to begin to open, to allow all manner of inequalities to take place, which is why you would need a humongous population to get the most even games possible. BV would solve so many problems with this game, and the numbers for each 'Mech and pilot would NOT have to be calculated at the beginning of each game, they would be set when you hit the save button on the 'Mech, and then when the game starts, those launching in just have their numbers thrown into buckets that are designed to add 'Mechs that will help the teams remain within 5% of one-another.

Again, most people might design crap 'Mechs, but those crap 'Mechs would be evened out against those who make great designs. Also, Elite pilots might face off against weaker pilots, but there would be higher numbers for those weak pilots to work against the Elites. For those of you thinking that Battle Value would do more harm than good, you really don't understand how it works and, from all of my explanations, not only in this thread, but throughout these forums, thus far, it seems like you're not interested in truly reading, and THINKING about the differences between what we have, now, and what we COULD have. Come on, guys, get out some paper and pencils and start writing down examples... study the original BV system for yourself, as there is documentation about it online -find it yourself, because you won't trust me to provide it- and think about the wider game, not just YOUR part in it.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Okay PGI, I don't know what you intention behind those Quirks are, but listening to the Town Halls, Tweets and Dev Vlogs, I have the impression, that you want to bring in a balance into this game but just don't know exactly how.

So, I'll give you some constructive input:

The original battletech ruleset was based on a dice, it did not matter how big the mech was or where its weapon were mounted nor did the weapons had a different reload time. And while the speed had a certain influence on how easy/hard a target could be hit, it did not matter how big the target was. So a Locust running 170 would have been the same as an Atlas running 170.

But MWO is a real-time game, meaning that you have to take additional real time variables into account. So before you introduce some Quirks, I'd suggest, you refab you core ruleset (meaning: The translation between battletech-rules to real-time-shooter rules) and add then Quirks to all the remaining gaps you may find.

So, lets get started:

1.) Small vs. big mechs
Small mechs have a lower profile and are faster than bigger and slower mechs. They can peek, poke and change their position in order to not get hit in the first place. Light are not meant to have a massive armor for protection, but their size and speed is their best asset.

Assaults on the other hand are so big and slow, that they cannot evade enemy fire. Maybe you have noticed, that Heavies are the Sweet spot in this game, simply because they hit the best point of speed, firepower, size and armor protection. In fact, Heavy mechs feel good and quite balanced towards both the power and the fun the game should deliver.

Spinning around to the time-to-kill, I propose the following formula:
max_armor=core_battletech_armor*(2+0.01*mech_tonnage)

A 20t locust would get a maximum armor protection of 2.2 of the core rules, while a 100t mech would get a max armor protection of 3.0 of the core rules.

So we scale the armor protection in a slightly non-linear way that balances out the non-linear engine tonnage towards higher engine-ratings bigger mechs must build in to be halfway usable.

Smaller mechs will get another bonus: All Double-Heat-Sinks up to 10, may they be internal or external, count as true Double-Heat-Sinks. This will help to compensate for heat on mechs that cannot mount engines below the 250 rating. They have to mount external heat sinks and its a little unfair to punish them for that.

2.) Movement Quirks
I don't really think that they matter much. Beside the assault class mechs, those Quirks do not really mean much compared to other Quirks like heat generation, cooldown or armor/structure Quirks. They are in my point of view really soft Quirks and olny have an effect on mechs that really suffer from lower movement rates, like the Direwolf.

3.) Weapon-based Quirks
These Quirks are only useful if you give them mechs that are short on hardpoints. We have many unquirked mechs out there (like the Shadowhawk) which were Tier 1 before just because they were capable of mounting a Jump Jet. The Kintaro was deemed Tier 4 or 5... but if I compare them now, the difference between them is rather thin compared to other mechs (Stormcrow)

I don't want to see any weapon based cooldown-Quirks at all in this game. The only reason for such a thing would be if the mech has a massive disadvantage on the weapon side (like too few hardpoints) that would justify such a Quirk.

And here we are at the core of the Problem: Hardpoints:
Some mechs have too few hardpoints, other mechs not the tonnage to use them effectively. For the clans, you could just add a global subfunction so you counter the omnipod-problem, counting the amount of hardpoints and give negative Quirks if someone tries to go crazy with them.

At the same time, you can get rid of the Ghost Heat and implement an energy-drain mechanic.
The keyword here is: Consistency.

4.) Weapon-Balance
I guess you have enough telemety by now to weight stuff like range, heat/damage-point, pinpoint-influence vs. spread influence, ammo-dependency, dps, burst/duration etc. I guess its time that you build yourself a matrix like everyone does who creates a ruleset.

5.) Hitbox/Geometry
This is where you can finally add Quirks, based on the statistic you get out of your data. You might see, that an Arctic Cheetah can run through hordes of enemy Mechs and survive... try that with a Centurion. ;-)
Yes, apples and pears - but the thing is, that mechs with a bad geomety need a little more love... best done by changing the geometry. I know it hurts, as it takes away time from you 3D artists, but the best balance is the balance, you don't have to fix at the first place. If you don't want to fix it, you could still have you armor-quirks.

6.) The role of a mech
Ever wondered why an Atlas does not really tank or why a scout is not scouting? The first one is easy: Because it does not have the armor to do so. What if you give the Atlas a +20% armor-Quirk flat?
And for a Scout, why don't you enable it to soft-lock mechs behind cover with an active radar/BAP?

Hard-lock would still require LOS, but why not soft locking? Maybe even multiple Targets?

You can give this game a lot more mechanics with those simple add-ons. They are easy to make, cheap and bring back the fun to this game.

In general, you have to perform a better tranlation of the Battletech-ruleset and count in additional parameters that have an impact on the balance. If you do that AND find the right values, this can still have a positive outcome. But as it stays now, the Quirks you use in the PTU are... not leading into the right direction.

Edited by Túatha Dé Danann, 16 September 2015 - 08:28 AM.