55 replies to this topic

[Hydrocarbon]

Lazy people lean on lore.




Heroic figures create their own.

[Sandpit]

Ihasa, on 24 February 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

. However did anyone win with some of those builds? Must've been some primo idiots with worse builds galore on the red team.

It's not hard. Most stock builds aren't "bad", they're just built with the idea of having well-rounded loadouts because you didn't customize in the TT game. I've won many times with stock loadouts on here. The biggest "problem" I see most players having with anything like a stock loadout is they have no idea how to manage the heat.

[Sandpit]

Kaisha, on 24 February 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

Why not just limited the CW drop deck by C-Bills and not tonnage? For example you can take 4 mechs with a total cost of say 40 million (or 30, or 50, or whatever...). Clan items would be a bit more effective but more costly, IS less but cheaper. Its still a 12v12, but could still be an asymmetrical design. Its would also mean niche and/or less than optimal weapons/builds could become viable options simply by being cheaper (like single heat sinks, flamers, machine guns, etc...) instead of weird buffs or quirks.

There's a better system than cbills called Battle Value that would work much better, especially here with all the customization. BV isn't "great", but it would give you a much closer matchup in terms of weight, firepower, mech effectiveness, etc. because every piece of equipment itself is given a BV.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

Part of the issue with matchups is that PGI sees an 85 ton mech as "equal" to a 100 ton assault mech because they're both assaults. Same with a Jenner and Locust

[Sandpit]

Dawnstealer, on 25 February 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

Yeah, if you read through that post, you can see that I'm not saying take away custom builds, just reel them in a little in a way that makes sense.

The biggest problem with that?

It's too late to implement something like that. It's been 3 years and mechs, players, and building rules are firmly ingrained into the community. Completely changing the system liek that is unrealistic in my opinion.
(personally I've never liked that idea though)

[Kaisha]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

There's a better system than cbills called Battle Value that would work much better, especially here with all the customization. BV isn't "great", but it would give you a much closer matchup in terms of weight, firepower, mech effectiveness, etc. because every piece of equipment itself is given a BV.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

Part of the issue with matchups is that PGI sees an 85 ton mech as "equal" to a 100 ton assault mech because they're both assaults. Same with a Jenner and Locust

From the links presented it seems functionally similar (if not identical) to what I suggested. How do you see it being different other than the name?

Edited by Kaisha, 25 February 2016 - 10:10 AM.

[Sandpit]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

From the links presented it seems functionally similar (if not identical) to what I suggested. How do you see it being different other than the name?

because it's not based on the cbill cost, it's based on a different formula entirely

[Kaisha]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

because it's not based on the cbill cost, it's based on a different formula entirely

Which is what? Its not in the link. What makes it different than CBills? What does it take into account that CBills doesn't or can't? What functionality does it provide?

[Sandpit]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 10:37 AM, said:

Which is what? Its not in the link. What makes it different than CBills? What does it take into account that CBills doesn't or can't? What functionality does it provide?

The BV system applies a number to a weapon based on the formula.

I don't remember the exact formula (we're talking 10+ years ago ok? )

Essentially what it does is apply a base BV to a chassis, then every piece of equipment that's added to that chassis adds to the BV based on the that piece of gear's BV.

So as an example
Atlas chassis = 100BV
LL = 25 BV
AC20 = 50 BV
300 STD = 50 BV

so on and so forth, once the mech has all of its gear placed in it, it's given a total BV. This allows for the MM system to get closer matchups if you go from a tonnage or weight class system to this.

Cbills don't take into account the effectiveness of a weapon, it just takes into account how much it cost. BV actually placed a value on a piece of gear based on its stats in comparison to the other systems in the game and can easily be adjusted as needed.
You can't adjust cbill prices like that.

[Kaisha]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

The BV system applies a number to a weapon based on the formula.

Same as CBills.

Quote

I don't remember the exact formula (we're talking 10+ years ago ok? )

That's fine, your description is adequate.

Quote

Essentially what it does is apply a base BV to a chassis, then every piece of equipment that's added to that chassis adds to the BV based on the that piece of gear's BV.

Again same as CBills.

Quote

so on and so forth, once the mech has all of its gear placed in it, it's given a total BV. This allows for the MM system to get closer matchups if you go from a tonnage or weight class system to this.

Identical to the system I proposed.

Quote

Cbills don't take into account the effectiveness of a weapon, it just takes into account how much it cost.

They are (or at least should be) one and the same. A more effective weapon should cost more, a less effective one cost less.

Quote

BV actually placed a value on a piece of gear based on its stats in comparison to the other systems in the game and can easily be adjusted as needed.

Just like CBills.

Quote

You can't adjust cbill prices like that.

Sure you can. Its trivial. If a weapon is too effective increase its price by 10%, too weak decrease its price. Same as BV.

What you've described is functionally identical to what I described. You've agreed with what I suggested in every way EXCEPT you call it BV while I called it CB. Call it what you will, the name is irrelevant to the mechanics, its the exact same thing. If you still can't see that mathematically BV and CB are functionally identical, ask yourself this, why are different weapons and mechs different prices in the first place?

[Sandpit]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

Sure you can. Its trivial. If a weapon is too effective increase its price by 10%, too weak decrease its price. Same as BV.

no
you can't

You can't adjust cbill prices on every piece of gear in the game with any frequency. That affects things outside of CW. A BV system does not unless they simply want to implement it for the QP also.

[Kaisha]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

no
you can't

You can't adjust cbill prices on every piece of gear in the game with any frequency. That affects things outside of CW. A BV system does not unless they simply want to implement it for the QP also.

Sure you can. What does it affect other than the purchase price of the weapon/mech?

And a CB/BV system would work equally well in QP.

[Sandpit]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

Sure you can. What does it affect other than the purchase price of the weapon/mech?

no you can't
it's not feasible for this game. You don't see the complaints that would result form this?

I just bought an AC20 10 minutes ago and now it's 100k cbills cheaper!

There's no economy in MWO, therefore you can't just simply adjust and flux prices on mechs, weapons, equipment, systems, etc. across the entire game with any kind of frequency.

You're jsut stuck on cbills for some reason. You can achieve the same (and more adaptable and accurate) system using BV instead AND you don't have the added issue of pissing off the majority of your player base by shifting cbill prices.

[Kaisha]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

no you can't
it's not feasible for this game. You don't see the complaints that would result form this?

I just bought an AC20 10 minutes ago and now it's 100k cbills cheaper!

No one would care. The prices of mechs fluctuate all the time as is as they hold sales. One of the first mechs I purchased went on sale the day after I purchased it. This happens all the time both in game and IRL. Flucutating prices already occurs and no one cares.

Quote

There's no economy in MWO, therefore you can't just simply adjust and flux prices on mechs, weapons, equipment, systems, etc. across the entire game with any kind of frequency.

Sure, just change the number in the database on the next patch. Its easier than adding/removing quirks (which is just adding/removing a few rows to a database).

Quote

You're jsut stuck on cbills for some reason. You can achieve the same (and more adaptable and accurate) system using BV instead AND you don't have the added issue of pissing off the majority of your player base by shifting cbill prices.

I'm 'stuck' on CBills because BV and CB ARE FUNCTIONALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY identical.

[Dawnstealer]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

The biggest problem with that?

It's too late to implement something like that. It's been 3 years and mechs, players, and building rules are firmly ingrained into the community. Completely changing the system liek that is unrealistic in my opinion.
(personally I've never liked that idea though)

I'd agree with the "too late to change it" part, at least. Cat's out of the bag.

[Sandpit]

Kaisha, on 25 February 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

I'm 'stuck' on CBills because BV and CB ARE FUNCTIONALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY identical.

and I've tried to explain to you that cbills won't work because the player base is not going to just be "ok" with fluctuating prices like that. In large part because

Dawnstealer, on 25 February 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

I'd agree with the "too late to change it" part, at least. Cat's out of the bag.

Those kinds of changes and such are things you use beta for. You can't make huge shifts like that 3 years after launch after taking millions of dollars from customers.

It just doesn't work like that. You can say there's no difference between cbills and BV but there is and I've pointed out the difference and why you can't use cbills like that.

it has nothing to do with the math of it, it has to do with the customers aren't going to go for that.

Not to mention that the cbill pricing would be severely skewed because there are other things like modules are not in any way priced in accordance and comparatively with other weapons and such. It would take a complete revamp of the ENTIRE economy of the game in order to be effective.

Now do you see the problem with using cbills?

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 25 February 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

It's not hard. Most stock builds aren't "bad", they're just built with the idea of having well-rounded loadouts because you didn't customize in the TT game. I've won many times with stock loadouts on here. The biggest "problem" I see most players having with anything like a stock loadout is they have no idea how to manage the heat.

I assume you mean heat on clan mechs, or do you mean running stock IS mechs?

The games heat system is build on the assumption of customizing, meaning upgrading IS mechs (Endo, DHS, etc.) and downgrading Clan mechs (remove/replace weapons with smaller versions) to add more DHS.
I've been trying to play a stock MDD-Prime and it's almost impossible with not being able to fire more than twice before needing to hide (get in a brawl and you're screwed) and running out of ammo very fast