74 replies to this topic

[grayson marik]

Wingm3n, on 21 September 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

Great idea, good work!

Thank you!

[grayson marik]

push

[VinJade]

question here:
if BV over all was used, what about skilled pilots that mount nothing but small Pls Lasers?

I ask because I have seen lights shred other mechs with nothing but SPLs, MGs, ect.

so wouldn't running machines like that always have a low BV, even in fast Medium Mechs(I have seen fast Swaybacks running around) if they use low BV weapons, how would that play in?

Skill I don't see adding that much in terms of BV.

[grayson marik]

VinJade, on 26 September 2015 - 05:52 AM, said:

question here:
if BV over all was used, what about skilled pilots that mount nothing but small Pls Lasers?

I ask because I have seen lights shred other mechs with nothing but SPLs, MGs, ect.

so wouldn't running machines like that always have a low BV, even in fast Medium Mechs(I have seen fast Swaybacks running around) if they use low BV weapons, how would that play in?

Skill I don't see adding that much in terms of BV.

Well, if Small pulse lasers would be used en masse as in your example, their BV would rise and so they would balance themselves.

In my example, I chosed usage to be the measure of BV rise and fall. Same would go not only for different chassis, but also for weapons.

Also, PGI of course should add other variables to the formula from the statistical data they gather anyway. So weapons used as you described should rise in BV until a point, where they are not of that much use anymore, because the BV limit per match/dropdeck is hard to keep, if you use a lot of them.

The BV is not there to calm all the waves. It is there to make sure that the big waves, cannot be ridden by more than one or 2 Mechs in a 12 men team at a time.

[p4r4g0n]

People keep bringing this idea of BV value for chassis, components but PGI can't or won't assign individual Elo or PSR to individual chassis. Is it me or does this seem like an exercise in futility?

[grayson marik]

Hehe think about it:
If you where PGI and if you could make money avery 3 month's with an other balancing run, where peoply buy new Mechs and modules and stuff - many mith MC - to adjust to the new META...... Would you ever want to implement a system, that would put most of this to an end?

But the truth is, there are more valuable Mechs and weapons on the field than others. There cannot be everything at the same level of viability!
And since we cannot govern this Battle Viability by economic, because this is a game and not real life military with spending cuts etc. we need to reflect these different viabilities in a Battle Value system, that puts a limit on usable BV in a match.

This is the only way to give all Mechs and equipment a role and a place.

Edited by grayson marik, 27 September 2015 - 12:13 AM.

[VinJade]

I was rereading you other post on page one and you was talking about using mechs X number of time so my question is does this mean a player is limited to using their personal mechs only x times and then forced to use different mechs?

or are you talking about something else entirely.. sorry I am just a little confused.

[grayson marik]

VinJade, on 27 September 2015 - 04:16 AM, said:

I was rereading you other post on page one and you was talking about using mechs X number of time so my question is does this mean a player is limited to using their personal mechs only x times and then forced to use different mechs?

or are you talking about something else entirely.. sorry I am just a little confused.

Well a match would have a BV limit and you would have to stay below that limit with your CW dropdeck or would get matched with your mech accordig to this limit in PUG queue.

So you would use your own mechs, just as now. Only difference:

in CW you would not have a 240 tonns weight limit but a BV limit to build your drop deck.

In PUG queue you now get matched by weight class of your Mech and your tier. Then you would get matches by the combined BV of your mech and your pilot rating bundled to a fiinal BV score for the matchmaker.

[grayson marik]

another push

[Miles McQuiston]

The implementation of this would be pure brilliance in MWO and bring a much needed economic control aspect to the arms race. PGI please pay attention to this idea and tell us what it would cost to make it happen. If you tell us what it would cost to implement perhaps the community could financially assist you to make it happen.

[Leopardo]

guys - and how its will work in PUG - we will have same battale value on the each side?

[grayson marik]

Leopardo, on 05 October 2015 - 02:02 AM, said:

guys - and how its will work in PUG - we will have same battale value on the each side?

Exactly1
MM will simply assign the same BV to each side instead of the current weight class + Tier matching.

BV is Mech BV +tier BV.

All the MM does is calculating with pilot BV. So you reduce the number of variables for the MM to just one and let both sides have the same BV limit.

This would even resolve the Clan vs IS issue. Both parties simply have the same BV on the field and thats

[GroxGlitch]

This sounds like a FANTASTIC idea! Hopefully PGI takes you up on it and gives it a whack; if nothing else, they could implement it on the test server and see how it works small-scale before stepping it up to the larger main server.

One small question though, and if this was mentioned I must have missed it: Where do chassis quirks fit into all of this? Functioning of weapons systems and chassis performance specs (torso twist range/speed, turn speed, etc) can both be varied greatly by the current quirk system, and if the PTS run was any indicator they're staying around, albeit in modified form. How would this BV system handle quirks?

[grayson marik]

GroxGlitch, on 06 October 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

This sounds like a FANTASTIC idea! Hopefully PGI takes you up on it and gives it a whack; if nothing else, they could implement it on the test server and see how it works small-scale before stepping it up to the larger main server.

One small question though, and if this was mentioned I must have missed it: Where do chassis quirks fit into all of this? Functioning of weapons systems and chassis performance specs (torso twist range/speed, turn speed, etc) can both be varied greatly by the current quirk system, and if the PTS run was any indicator they're staying around, albeit in modified form. How would this BV system handle quirks?

If quirks would be left in place, they would contribute to the chassis base BV value. So each quirk would also have a small BV value.

[Leopardo]

guys - we have to show this topic here - http://mwomercs.com/...each-group-size

[Grayson Sortek]

I'm always happy to see a Grayson inspiring people and ideas.
I completely support this system and I really hope that the PGI Devs take note.

Have you heard a response, or have you been contacted by any of the staff? This is a great idea, and the fact that you're not asking for compensation or payment in return for this should be considered a Godsend to them. Hopefully they realize this and at least respond to you.

Amazing work/ideas!

[grayson marik]

Grayson Sortek, on 07 October 2015 - 05:03 AM, said:

I'm always happy to see a Grayson inspiring people and ideas.
I completely support this system and I really hope that the PGI Devs take note.

Have you heard a response, or have you been contacted by any of the staff? This is a great idea, and the fact that you're not asking for compensation or payment in return for this should be considered a Godsend to them. Hopefully they realize this and at least respond to you.

Amazing work/ideas!

Not at all.
I have send it via support and feedback mail address, PMed it to paul via forums and posted the link to the thread to paul and russ via twitter.
Can't do more I guess...

No reply on any of these chanels

[grayson marik]

Unfortunately systems like these often dont get any attention as they are flamed by many people, who simply dont read till the end or missunderstand important parts of it and then go directly to flames and forks before asking questions...

[BladeXXL]

Most ppl wanna have TL;DR; and are just to lazy to understand the point...

[Skarlock]

I don't like the idea of solving imbalance by leaving it in the hands of matchmaker. This is because leaving OP mechs as OP and under powered mechs as under powered means that if matchmaker hits a snag and can't balance the groups, it will simply create imbalanced matches anyways, or people will end up waiting forever to start a match. When you put that responsibility solely into matchmakers hands, it can't deal with a situation where everyone in single queue just takes the most OP mech they can take, except for a few people that want to play lower tier mechs that are an odd number. 3/3/3/3 has this same problem because it's attempting to enforce a constraint, and it just waits and waits forever for lights that don't show up and too many heavy mechs per side. If you make matchmaker strictly adhere to balancing rules, people wait too long to get an actual match, and the looser the rules are, the more the match quality degrades. The less matchmaker has to do in order to balance matches, the easier it becomes for it to make matches and the more time the players can spend actually playing the game as opposed to waiting forever staring at the search wheel.

This is also bad business for PGI. Every mech is essentially a product, and if people don't buy them because they suck, they lose money. If they are over powered, then other people feel forced to spend money to stay competitive, and people don't like games that essentially devolve into pay to win scenarios. If the mechs were completely balanced, then it wouldn't matter if the enemy team has 4 or 5 assaults and the other team is mostly mediums and lights. At that point matchmaker could only balance on player rating/skill and be much faster and accurate in creating balanced matches.