5 replies to this topic

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

Hi there,

I was reading about an interesting idea of balancing in one the post here (can't remember). It was about the more frequently a mech is used the higher its battlevalue (BV) is.

I thought great idea, but we have all this match data, why not use this.

1. So what we need is a matchvalue (MV).
It breaks down like this:

MV
- Support success value
- Direct combat success value

The support success value is calculated with data from scouting, targeting, capturing,... and so on.
The Direct combat success value is calculated with data from Kills, Killassists and damage.

So the idea is to calculate how succesfull each mech is in the game.

2. Some people may go with a meta build and others may have an completely different build with the same mech. To adress this I evaluated a combatvalue (CV) that mirrors the current used build.
It breaks down like this:

CV
- Close combat value
- Medium combat value
- Long range combat value
- Support value

The Close combat value breaks down:
- Mobility close
- Firepower close
- Armor
- Sensors close
- ECM

Same for the Medium and Long range value.

The Support value breaks down:
- Mobility general
- Sensors general
- ECM

Explaination:
Mobility combines:
- size (the farer away, the more important)
- Speed (the closer, the more important)
- Turning speeds and angles (the closer, the more important)
- Jumpjets (the farer away, the more important)
Firepower combines:
- Hardpoints (the higher the better)
- Weapons (specific value combined with the hardpoint value)
- Heatmanagment
Sensors are self explaining (see the new sensor quirks on the test server)


3. The battlevalue (BV) is a combination from MV and CV
Every player should see the current MV and CV and BV in the mechlab.

4. Matchmaking

For the PUG the match maker selects high and low BV mechs together for one team. In this way the teams should be equal.
For groups there is a maximum limit BV for the hole team dependend on group size.
Example:
The average global BV is 1500.
12 man team can bring a maximum of 12x1500 BV (18000 BV).
11 man team 11x1550 BV. (+50/mech)
10 man team 10x1610 BV. (+60/mech)
9 man team 9x1680 BV. (+70/mech)
8 man team 8x1760 BV. (+80/mech)
6 man team 6x1850 BV (+90/mech)
.
.
.
1 man single no restriction (but may has to wait long for matches if the BV is extremly high)

If your team wants to go without this restriction, you have to go to an "open" match, where are no restrictions. But on the open matches should only be the hardcore teams.

5. CW

It would be possible (not a must have) to let the clan teams play with the 10 man binarstar system vs a 12 man IS team.

6. Rewards

To reward players to play low BV mechs, there is following system:
Mech vs mech interaction (kills, killassists, damage...) are rewarded with a multiplicator (enemyBV/ownBV).
Mech with supporting roles grant a bonus from a mulitplicator (constantvalue/ownBV).

7. This system would animate players to choose mechs with lower BV. You won't be able to make a bad mech decision for your team. If you can play the mech you choose well, you can get the same amount of rewards with low BV like with high BV.


@PGI: I can make congret formulas for this system if you want me to. But this would consume some time.

[grayson marik]

hehe, it was this thread and usage numbers where only one of many data fields to use. in the end, a very similar system. Usage was only used to illustrate the statistical behaviour of the system. Still I see, we are very similar in mind. While I would give everything a BV value based on usage, success, damage etc etc, you split it into different "role values" for a chassis.
Also a nice idea, my compliments.

Also the rewards are going exactly into the direction I had in mind.
Sadly, you will notice very soon, that all your work is for nothing.
No matter if you twitter russ or paul
If you put it into another and then another suggestion/feedback thread
If you PM russ or paul or one of the devs here
If you mail it to the feedback and/or support email adress...

You will not get a reply literally spoken none, nada, niente. Not a single letter.

Face it: a BV system, that would finally solve balancing is not what PGI wants. They want exactly this number changing every few weeks to be able to sell more Mechs and stuff over and over again.

Example?

20 different chassis are rarely used and therefore not bought. So with the next balance run they will become viable, while others will be nerved to death.
What happens?
Some players will be angry and after a week... people will buy the newly viable chassis, then spend their Cbills with refitting and poff, another round of fresh income for PGI when MC gets bought or Mechs for MC....

And this happens every 8 to 12 weeks.

Now, if a BV system would normalize Mech usage to equal levels, players with a good variety of different Mechs in their garage would not be forced to buy another one or to refit everything once in 10 weeks.

You see, they do not want a solution, they want to keep going with that number turning BS they do for 3 years now.

Edited by grayson marik, 24 September 2015 - 01:06 AM.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

an addition to:
4. Matchmaking
With seperating the data from the single maps individual, it would be possible for the matchmaker to make games more equal.
First the matchmaker chooses a map. Second he select the players with the spezific BV of this map (on a night map, the BV of ecm capable mechs is higher, or light mechs have an increased BV on urban maps).
This individuell BV for every map could be aranged with the ratio of successfull gameplay. In the mechlab the average BV is shown.

[Mazzyplz]

i like this; is the community big enough to do this without 20 minute wait times though?

[grayson marik]

Mazzyplz, on 27 September 2015 - 01:05 AM, said:

i like this; is the community big enough to do this without 20 minute wait times though?

Wait times would actually reduce, if the BV or MC as it was named in the 1st post would be the only value for the MM to work with.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

grayson marik, on 24 September 2015 - 01:04 AM, said:

Face it: a BV system, that would finally solve balancing is not what PGI wants. They want exactly this number changing every few weeks to be able to sell more Mechs and stuff over and over again.

Example?

20 different chassis are rarely used and therefore not bought. So with the next balance run they will become viable, while others will be nerved to death.
What happens?
Some players will be angry and after a week... people will buy the newly viable chassis, then spend their Cbills with refitting and poff, another round of fresh income for PGI when MC gets bought or Mechs for MC....

And this happens every 8 to 12 weeks.

Now, if a BV system would normalize Mech usage to equal levels, players with a good variety of different Mechs in their garage would not be forced to buy another one or to refit everything once in 10 weeks.

You see, they do not want a solution, they want to keep going with that number turning BS they do for 3 years now.

I must sadly agree. I know the chances are bad, that PGI will read this. But if there is any chance 1:1.000.000 that they read this and think about implementing something similar, I will continue to write these posts.