74 replies to this topic

[grayson marik]

Karl Streiger, on 03 November 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

Thanks for ruining my day - i really don't need another reminder

Sorry Karl. At least I am not alone in my grief and so you are not alone too :-)

[DailyFrankPeter]

I would play this just to see how a dynamic system works. I think this could be the next big thing.

I kept suggesting such a supply and demand system to solve Planetside 2's assymetric balance woes - met with immense opposition in the form of: "Why should I be punished for being successful with a vehicle?". That game is all but dead now. Meanwhile, Games Workshop has had a point value system for decades (since before PCs).

PS2 had all the data to make it happen too, such as Kills per Spawn for each vehicle type. I think this particular input variable is the way to go.

Edited by DailyFrankPeter, 09 November 2015 - 01:31 AM.

[DailyFrankPeter]

Regarding the OP-nerf item cycle you seem to be struggling against here:

Since this seems to be a recurring issue (I've seen it personally with Planetisde 2 - where the dev team has *accidentally* been too busy too correct some stats on OP weapons for several months, same ones that happened to sell very well; and heard this is exactly the way Tribes went extinct)...
I gather that there is an initial production value to each game which needs to be aggressively earned back, before the game engine/graphics/appeal become obsolete. This is not a market for products with long term value, in fact every year you may be supplanted by something else.

I want to say 2 things:
- I appreciate how crap it feels to have a good idea wasted, but at least the community seems to be in favour (unlike PS2's)
- perhaps it's best to pitch this idea to SOME OTHER GAME, which is past it's initial investment return, has older engine, declining playerbase and/or is badly in need of fresh ideas; say, if Hawken (currently deserted; and mind you not as fast as it is) - or even a space sim, like Infinity: Battlescape (currently kickstarting) or you name it, had component based combat and BV's, plus some appealing progression - I'd be happy to play it

I put a some money into MWO and I'm watching where they're going with this. Got about 200hrs of fun from my BF3 purchase - that compares to about 2 mechs + some MC. Similar value-for-money for Planetside 2. But I may just put the next mech's worth of cash into some small game without a Microsoft license, for which it will make all the difference.

Edited by DailyFrankPeter, 09 November 2015 - 05:20 AM.

[grayson marik]

DailyFrankPeter, on 09 November 2015 - 05:07 AM, said:

Regarding the OP-nerf item cycle you seem to be struggling against here:

Since this seems to be a recurring issue (I've seen it personally with Planetisde 2 - where the dev team has *accidentally* been too busy too correct some stats on OP weapons for several months, same ones that happened to sell very well; and heard this is exactly the way Tribes went extinct)...
I gather that there is an initial production value to each game which needs to be aggressively earned back, before the game engine/graphics/appeal become obsolete. This is not a market for products with long term value, in fact every year you may be supplanted by something else.

I want to say 2 things:
- I appreciate how crap it feels to have a good idea wasted, but at least the community seems to be in favour (unlike PS2's)
- perhaps it's best to pitch this idea to SOME OTHER GAME, which is past it's initial investment return, has older engine, declining playerbase and/or is badly in need of fresh ideas; say, if Hawken (currently deserted; and mind you not as fast as it is) - or even a space sim, like Infinity: Battlescape (currently kickstarting) or you name it, had component based combat and BV's, plus some appealing progression - I'd be happy to play it

I put a some money into MWO and I'm watching where they're going with this. Got about 200hrs of fun from my BF3 purchase - that compares to about 2 mechs + some MC. Similar value-for-money for Planetside 2. But I may just put the next mech's worth of cash into some small game without a Microsoft license, for which it will make all the difference.

Ahh yeah, you might be right. Only thing is: I do not care if Hawken or any other game would need something like the system shown here ;-)
This game here is the PC incarnation of my oldest hobby and THIS game here is wasting potential. It is not the only game doing so and by far will not be the last one. But it is the one I care about ^^

[DailyFrankPeter]

grayson marik, on 09 November 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Ahh yeah, you might be right. Only thing is: I do not care if Hawken or any other game would need something like the system shown here ;-)
This game here is the PC incarnation of my oldest hobby and THIS game here is wasting potential. It is not the only game doing so and by far will not be the last one. But it is the one I care about ^^

Fair enough. Just suggesting.

Edited by DailyFrankPeter, 09 November 2015 - 07:39 AM.

[grayson marik]

DailyFrankPeter, on 09 November 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

Fair enough. Just suggesting.

Thx and one more reason for my frustration, yet Don Quichote like continuing:

I once was a professional programmer -> these times are now 10 years gone, so I am just doing a bit here and there, like innerspherewars.eu.

And still, while only doing some hobby level programming, I simply don't get it how PGI wants to balance multiple things that are simply different from each other, without a measurement system.

They try tonnage after they disabled tonnage as power indicator.
They try to cap alpha strikes, while they did not bother to really implement a true heat scale and a convergence sollution
They try to balance more than 400 Mechs ( each variant counted ) and somewhat 200+ Skills, Weapons, Module types etc.

They try to square the circle with nothing but half arsed band aids, while they are sitting on the biggest match and metrics database, one can think of.
And they simply refuse to use this data for a performance indicator based system!
This is soo annoying for everybody who remotely knows, what a database is and how to use it. ...

[Hawk_eye]

This.....this is just genius!

[grayson marik]

Thank you :-)

[grayson marik]

Well, here some insights from the BWO Solaris tournament, we had in late 2015.

[Karl Streiger]

Just a reminder.... tired of seeing always the same Mechs?

I really would like a Mech MM rather than a "Skill" MM - when the other guy is better in a comparable Mech - so be it. But when he beats you - actually did he beat you because of his "reading Meta Mech" skill or because he was really the better pilot.

[VinJade]

@Karl
well I think it is because they are riding a meta mech and nothing more than that.
there was a thread in the general topics where they was making fun of someone using an Atlas with LRMs to give himself a a jack of all trades type of role.

I had challenged them to use the same build but they wouldn't because they suck and they know it or else they would have use the Atlas Build to prove me and others wrong that it is actually skill and not meta mechs.

but in the end the bigger talkers tend to be weaker in skills.

I am by no means the best of the best, not even close to it but I don't go around bragging how I am better because my mech is meta, blah, blah, blah.

the only time I would not questing someone's skill are those that pilot lights like spider pilots & even the ACHs whom seem to make their machines 'dance' as they fight and I seen them do this in all fast lights.

anyways back to the topic at hand.

the more I think about this the more it makes me chuckle because with mechs like the ACH being accused of being OPed this system I think might force the players to rethink how they use it & what they use on it.

Same with the OP jesus in a box, I could see the ecm becoming high in the BV system for that reason alone.

Though I have one question that I might have missed an Answer to in the other posts.

Using this system would LRMs being as lack luster as they are and so many counter measures that they have would they always be low BV or would they get higher seeing as how weak they are compared to all other weapons including AC 2s as the unarmored LRMs do nothing at all up close while the AC 2 will always deal damage.

in any case I think it could solve some problems out there.

Edited by VinJade, 19 April 2016 - 02:35 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

VinJade, on 19 April 2016 - 02:27 AM, said:

Using this system would LRMs being as lack luster as they are and so many counter measures that they have would they always be low BV or would they get higher seeing as how weak they are compared to all other weapons including AC 2s as the unarmored LRMs do nothing at all up close while the AC 2 will always deal damage.

afaik its not for loadout - just Mech Variant.... although PGI should have the data to even add a weapon BV value.

For example if 6 out of 8 TimberWolf drive just LPL and MPL - this variants get a slightly higher BV than other TimberWolf variants

For example: TBR-Meta = 12 Points, TBR-Whatever 11 Points. Mad Dog with LRMs 8 Points, Mad Dog with Streaks 9 Points....you know the drill

With loadouts its not doable for grayson. alone because PGI does not give us any API to collect the data of the last games.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 April 2016 - 02:49 AM.

[Doctor Dinosaur]

I'm just here to add a bump to the threat, hoping it helps getting PGIs attention.

[Karl Streiger]

Well the other four similar topics in the last 3 years didn't.
A pitty, because implementation is simple and they are sitting on those invaluable data

[VinJade]

@Karl
to be honest I think LRMs should have a lower score seeing how low powered they are compared AC 2s, SRMs, ER PPCs, ect.
while the BV should be higher for more powerful items like the ECM, SMPLs, ect.