435 replies to this topic

[Leopardo]

Seph MacLeod, on 13 October 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

How about just forgetting tonnage limits and making things go by .. *GASP* .. BATTLE VALUE!

Firestarters and Artic Cheetah OP as ****? HIGH BATTLE VALUE!

Storm Crows pissing in everyones cereal? HIGH BATTLE VALUE!

ThunderBolts just fricken God Like? HIGH BATTLE VALUE!

Gee.. now it actually makes sense to take some stuff like the Nova and Treb into battle because of a lower BT that can be adjusted with out messing with everything else so bad.

Do you honestly think this craps gonna fly if the Warhammer ends up being God Like? or the IIC's roll in and start mixing IS body styles with clan weapons?

http://mwomercs.com/...actually-works/

[Yozzman]

The minimum tonnage is not nice, what if i want to play with a friend both in a light?

[Fluffshock]

if i understand this properly im a little sad. I often que with a buddy in double atlas or my gauss crab and his lrm atlas.

we wont get to do that anymore and thats not cool.

[Stealth Fox]

Look guys, Go the battle-tech route on this one. You will NOT be able to balance stiff with static values like Weight. Unless you nerf everything to the deck, There will always be super meta steam roll decks to drop in no matter what weight you do. You can't drop the weight of a Storm Crow or raise it, But you CAN make their battle value high for instance to stop everyone from dropping a TW/EJ and then 3 Crows.

You can't stop people from dumping in either a trash heavy or assault mech or even a moderately good one so they can spam Fire Starters, but you CAN raise the Battle Value of them.

You won't get the player base to try lesser used mechs with a weight limit to work around, because why bother if you have a hard limit that stops you from getting something good or OP in.

You CAN do all of this with Battle Values though. Base Mech+weapons load out+Modules=Total Base Value. This is something you can adjust EASILY to compensate for when a mech becomes to good or falls flat on its face. It may take work to set up, but I KNOW you guys can do it and I know you guys already have tier lists of which mech does what and what weapons are the biggest baddest.

Then you can adjust weapon and mech balance SEVERAL ways. Clan LLs to good? Raise the BV on them so perhaps it is best to use another weapon to get that other good mech in. Mech to good? raise it's base BV. Mech not used enough? Lower its base BV.

It gives you so many other options rather than Blanket Nerfs, Drop Deck limits that don't do ANYTHING as seen last time, people will still cheese the cheese because weight limits do not stop cheese. and it will let you fine tune balance with OUT messing with PugLand and solo drops.

Come on Paul, It makes sense, several table tops including BattleTech do it. Even several GAMES do it via 'population control' it has application in SEVERAL settings, and this one is already pretty much PREMADE for you to copy paste into the game.

BATTLE VALUE
BATTLE VALUE
BATTLE VALUE
BATTLE VALUE!

[grayson marik]

Seph MacLeod, on 13 October 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Look guys, Go the battle-tech route on this one. You will NOT be able to balance stiff with static values like Weight. Unless you nerf everything to the deck, There will always be super meta steam roll decks to drop in no matter what weight you do. You can't drop the weight of a Storm Crow or raise it, But you CAN make their battle value high for instance to stop everyone from dropping a TW/EJ and then 3 Crows.

You can't stop people from dumping in either a trash heavy or assault mech or even a moderately good one so they can spam Fire Starters, but you CAN raise the Battle Value of them.

You won't get the player base to try lesser used mechs with a weight limit to work around, because why bother if you have a hard limit that stops you from getting something good or OP in.

You CAN do all of this with Battle Values though. Base Mech+weapons load out+Modules=Total Base Value. This is something you can adjust EASILY to compensate for when a mech becomes to good or falls flat on its face. It may take work to set up, but I KNOW you guys can do it and I know you guys already have tier lists of which mech does what and what weapons are the biggest baddest.

Then you can adjust weapon and mech balance SEVERAL ways. Clan LLs to good? Raise the BV on them so perhaps it is best to use another weapon to get that other good mech in. Mech to good? raise it's base BV. Mech not used enough? Lower its base BV.

It gives you so many other options rather than Blanket Nerfs, Drop Deck limits that don't do ANYTHING as seen last time, people will still cheese the cheese because weight limits do not stop cheese. and it will let you fine tune balance with OUT messing with PugLand and solo drops.

Come on Paul, It makes sense, several table tops including BattleTech do it. Even several GAMES do it via 'population control' it has application in SEVERAL settings, and this one is already pretty much PREMADE for you to copy paste into the game.

BATTLE VALUE
BATTLE VALUE
BATTLE VALUE
BATTLE VALUE!

No {LT-MOB-25} is as hard as live... or in this case the truth.
If only PGI would listen...

[Chocowolf Sradac]

I will chime in here

Please stop measuring mechs based on Tonnage mechs of the same tonnage do not operate the same way and some are much better then others

example a 75 ton Orion and a 75 ton Timberwolf are not on the same caliber when it comes to how they are piloted. Tonnage is a broken system unless each mech is properly balanced to compete with the mechs in their weight class which many chasiss are not, Some mechs despite getting the nerf bat will still be better just by design and how the current meta is

This is the Very thing that is destroying Community warfare as your limiting mechs based on Tonnage when a battle value system is a much more viable system to use. A battle value system does exist and has proven to be a much better system then tonnage

Should this be implemented it will destroy pug drops as well forcing people to rely on the utterly broken Tonnage system unless the mechs are properly balanced. All this will change is that you will see more Meta mechs on the field and less lower tier mechs

Edited by Chocowolf, 13 October 2015 - 06:03 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Chocowolf, on 13 October 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

I will chime in here

Please stop measuring mechs based on Tonnage mechs of the same tonnage do not operate the same way and some are much better then others

example a 75 ton Orion and a 75 ton Timberwolf are not on the same caliber when it comes to how they are piloted. Tonnage is a broken system unless each mech is properly balanced to compete with the mechs in their weight class which many chasiss are not, Some mechs despite getting the nerf bat will still be better just by design and how the current meta is

This is the Very thing that is destroying Community warfare as your limiting mechs based on Tonnage when a battle value system is a much more viable system to use. A battle value system does exist and has proven to be a much better system then tonnage

Should this be implemented it will destroy pug drops as well forcing people to rely on the utterly broken Tonnage system unless the mechs are properly balanced. All this will change is that you will see more Meta mechs on the field and less lower tier mechs

My concern with implementing a TT-esque battle value system is that PGI will stop trying to balance chassis against one another altogether and will resign themselves to adjusting BV. Crap mechs will drown further into obscurity with no hope of being buffed, because PGI will view both using BV AND adjusting mech balance as a redundant waste of time.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 14 October 2015 - 09:18 AM.

[grayson marik]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

My concern with implementing a TT-esque battle value system is that PGI will stop trying to balance chassis against one another altogether and will resign themselves to adjusting BV. Crap mechs will drown further into obscurity with no hope of being buffed, because PGI will view both using BV AND adjusting mech balance as a redundant waste of time.

Why do you fear that?
With reasonable BV limits on matches, you would see maybe 1-3 META Mechs in a match at a time. The rest would be your so called "Crap Mechs".

Balancing mechs against each other is right now at a point, where a quite good balance is achieved but it is simply not enough.
And more important: What else numbers do you want to change? What else arbitrary, illogic systems like ghost heat and now ghost damage on the PTS do you want to implement?

No, there are always Mechs better than others and weapons better than others.
What makes them all viable should be a BV limit on matches.

Such BV limit would simply simulate the real life military budget constraints, that makes all equipment viable.

[Torezu]

grayson marik, on 14 October 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

Such BV limit would simply simulate the real life military budget constraints, that makes all equipment viable.

In order to do that well, one would have to have a team (such as that modern military) where the leaders (commanders) would agree on who got to use what high-value equipment. The current every-mechwarrior-for-himself attitude in PUG drops will make such a BV limit a less attractive option.

[grayson marik]

Torezu, on 14 October 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

In order to do that well, one would have to have a team (such as that modern military) where the leaders (commanders) would agree on who got to use what high-value equipment. The current every-mechwarrior-for-himself attitude in PUG drops will make such a BV limit a less attractive option.

I disagree. currently you can see the percentages of light, medium, heavy and assault mechs on top. From this numbers you can tell how long you will probably have to wait, if you use a certain weight class.

With BV you would have maybe 4 different BV values or margins with the same wait time estimates.

So on MM info, there would be no draw back in PUG mode. It would even be faster, since MM would only have to calculate with BV and not with weight class constraints + PSR.

And on CW... well, you would not have a weight class limit but a BV limit, so what? No new contraints on player choice but eventually faster MM and more fair matches.

So again, I disagree with your BV fear.

This community has been so in fear of any remotely TT based system converted into a video game mechanic, that even the best and most simple ones are denied in favour of years of number changes and function changes on working systems and Mechs.

Edited by grayson marik, 14 October 2015 - 12:29 PM.

[CorranHorn]

I am in agreement with most people it seems, the tonnage restriction on the two and three man groups, especially on the minimum weight, is a little too restrictive. My brother and I almost always play together and there are many times where we like to play lights. Usually that is where we do our best. So to not be able to do that is kinda a big bummer. On the other end we also like to duo assaults, but that is a little less of an issue as we can play a wider selection and still be in two assaults.

[Mr Hunter]

No just...don't do this....this is not wise.

[Damien Tokala]

Due to the direction PGI has gone with MWO, i will be making an effort to switch over to MWLL, as well as recommending the same action to friends.

i do not agree with pauls idea of balance, i do not agree with their approach to content sales and insanely long preorder mech packs, i do not agree with their lack of involvement in said games development as compared to other companies like Digital Extremes.

MWO had the potential to be amazing, and it was in its infancy, but now it is just a ridiculous cash grab, with no concern for the original mechwarrior franchise, or its own player base.

Edited by Damien Tokala, 17 October 2015 - 10:27 AM.

[Davers]

Prosperity Park, on 12 October 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

So, to reitterate my comment from page 1.

Will the weight limits be changed so I can drop in a Jenner with my other Founder Friends and their Jenners?

1. No, because that means you can take 3 Arctic Cheetahs and no one wants that to be an option.

2. No, because you are supposed to max out available tonnage to be "balanced" against larger groups.

[Davers]

grayson marik, on 14 October 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

Why do you fear that?
With reasonable BV limits on matches, you would see maybe 1-3 META Mechs in a match at a time. The rest would be your so called "Crap Mechs".

Balancing mechs against each other is right now at a point, where a quite good balance is achieved but it is simply not enough.
And more important: What else numbers do you want to change? What else arbitrary, illogic systems like ghost heat and now ghost damage on the PTS do you want to implement?

No, there are always Mechs better than others and weapons better than others.
What makes them all viable should be a BV limit on matches.

Such BV limit would simply simulate the real life military budget constraints, that makes all equipment viable.

Isn't designing a system where you expect people to run "Crap Mechs" to earn performance based rewards kinda stupid?

[Davers]

Everyone asking for BV systems, please understand that we cannot just copy/paste BT's numbers into MWO. PGI would have to create their own system. What would the system be based on? Most likely how much damage each weapon currently does in game. And I share Jack S. Walker's fears that a bad weapon system (like LRMs) would just be given a low value, and that would be end of balancing it.

[Stealth Fox]

And you think Weight will balance it? Clans have the Art Che AND the Doom Crow, What makes you think in Gods Green earth that ANY form of drop deck weight balancing will stop those from getting spammed? It won't It's impossible with out .. like you said, forcing us to take crappy mechs to get good ones.

You've shown nothing But the exact reasons why weight balancing sucks.

[grayson marik]

Davers, on 17 October 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

Isn't designing a system where you expect people to run "Crap Mechs" to earn performance based rewards kinda stupid?

Isn't a system stupid, that forces you to always drive the latest meta and that renders 70% of available Mechs, weapons,equipment useless?

Davers, on 17 October 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

Everyone asking for BV systems, please understand that we cannot just copy/paste BT's numbers into MWO. PGI would have to create their own system. What would the system be based on? Most likely how much damage each weapon currently does in game. And I share Jack S. Walker's fears that a bad weapon system (like LRMs) would just be given a low value, and that would be end of balancing it.

Nah, I never spoke abpout transfering the TT BV system to MWO. I presented a scaling system, that adjusts BV to efficiency and usage numbers and provided the statistical proof of concept here.
And not only this, I already use this system in a planetary league for almost 10 month's.

Those who speak up for a BV system do not want to simply shoehorn TT BV into MWO BV. What we want is a BV system, that takes the actual statistical data from MWO and calculates an accurate BV value that combines PILOT TIER, MECH CHASSIS, WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT,SKILLS and MODULES into just ONE resulting BV value, which is then used for MM in public queue and as BV limit on CW Dropdecks.

• Such a system would finally stop Mechs from being changed completely month's after people bought them.
  
• It would actually provide just ONE variable for the MM to work with, instead of the current mess that overwhelms the MM
  
• And it would give PGI the tools to actually really measure player performance in accordance with the Mech, Weapons, Equipment, Modules etc. used. Current match score is just a joke.

And last but not least, it would render GhostHeat and 1.4 Heatsinks obsolete.

Edited by grayson marik, 18 October 2015 - 02:46 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 17 October 2015 - 08:19 PM, said:

1. No, because that means you can take 3 Arctic Cheetahs and no one wants that to be an option.

but that's what you can do right now. How is it any worse? Right now, a group of three is totally unrestricted.

[Leopardo]

YES but there is 3 3 3 3 rule) and no spam of shassie. I like this idea - dear PGI take it as a base http://mwomercs.com/...-actually-works