19 replies to this topic

[GreyNovember]

Hear me out here.

We have Potato mechs and God tier mechs. Then we have the ones that are technically usable and not perfectly optimized but it's better than average.

Suppose only mechs that fit into those categories would play against each other.

Instead of us seperating by weight class, we seperate by how effective each mech is in combat.

Ideal scenario, we'd never see TBR/ACH/DWF in the potato league, where Lynxes, Vindicators, and Dragons are free to run against mechs that pose relatively the same amount of threat to each other.

[QuantumButler]

Yuo mean like some kind of system that calculated how much value a machine brought to the battle?

Some sort of...Battle Value, if you will?

Nope, that's impossible.

Edited by QuantumButler, 28 March 2016 - 07:45 PM.

[RestosIII]

And who determines what mech is good and what isn't? PGI? I'd LOVE to see that /s. If it was based on ingame statistics of damage done, or average match score even, that'll just make mechs built as LRM boats disproportionally high, and make support mechs "bad" according to the system. That, and it sounds like a lot of work for a change that would cause more problems than solutions.

[El Bandito]

What will the metric base on? Solo-Q? Cause that's where most players are.

Also, even if Timbie and Cheetah can be for some reason considered as equal tier mech, one side having four Cheetahs and the other side having four Timbies will not make it equal. Weight restriction should still be around.

BV is interesting in concept but due to the immense work to make it resemble some sort of balance, and the amount of shitstorm it will entail, I am not sure PGI will ever try it.

[Pjwned]

Battle Value (BV) and BV-like systems are **** and will not fit in this game ever.

[Ghogiel]

But if PGI did try it, I am 99% certain it will be a disaster anyway

[Wintersdark]

Ghogiel, on 28 March 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

But if PGI did try it, I am 99% certain it will be a disaster anyway

Yes, because PGI balancing systems are always kind of a disaster at best.

Also yes, because even if PGI wasn't notorious for fubbing rebalance projects, building a BV system in MWO would be orders of magnitude more complex than in TT, and being as MWO is entirely different mechanically the TT values wouldn't even serve as starting values.

It'd be an immense project, and one that would carry an extremely high probability of being a total failure and loss of a substantial amount of very precious dev time.

And even if it did work out - in the EXTREMELY unlikely case that it actually worked out and was in fact perfectly balanced (hahah lol!) It still wouldn't help in the slightest because, just like for PSR/Elo matchmaking, we do t have enough players to give the matchmaker a suitably large pool to draw from in building matches to be able to actually create BV+PSR balanced matches.

But go on, people, carry that BV torch!

[Y E O N N E]

El Bandito, on 28 March 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

Also, even if Timbie and Cheetah can be for some reason considered as equal tier mech, one side having four Cheetahs and the other side having four Timbies will not make it equal. Weight restriction should still be around.

Weight restriction would not have to still be around if all 'Mechs were made to be equally combat effective, something they are not currently. As long as the "moar tonz r bettar" system persists, then yes, what you say is true.

[Paigan]

Some Mechs are VERY good for certain situations and/or even certain maps and/or even player styles and bad for others.

Example:
DWF for defending on Boreal Vault (= rather stationary): extremely good (with the right loadout)
DWF for attacking (and slowing down the whole team): not so good

So what's the DWF's effectiveness? Is it high? Is it low? Is it "about in the middle"?
Wouldn't that apply to EVERY Mech?

Is the HBR better or worse than the EBJ?
If ECM brings an advantage in a certain situation, then yes. If not and the enemy knows to aim for LT, the HBR is ... not so good.

I score pretty well in an SHC on a regular basis. Most other people say it's crap.
So does it have a high effectiveness or a low one?

Conclusion:
It's a nice idea, admitted. But it's far from practically applicable.

Edited by Paigan, 28 March 2016 - 11:44 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 28 March 2016 - 11:30 PM, said:

Yes, because PGI balancing systems are always kind of a disaster at best.

Also yes, because even if PGI wasn't notorious for fubbing rebalance projects, building a BV system in MWO would be orders of magnitude more complex than in TT, and being as MWO is entirely different mechanically the TT values wouldn't even serve as starting values.

It'd be an immense project, and one that would carry an extremely high probability of being a total failure and loss of a substantial amount of very precious dev time.

And even if it did work out - in the EXTREMELY unlikely case that it actually worked out and was in fact perfectly balanced (hahah lol!) It still wouldn't help in the slightest because, just like for PSR/Elo matchmaking, we do t have enough players to give the matchmaker a suitably large pool to draw from in building matches to be able to actually create BV+PSR balanced matches.

But go on, people, carry that BV torch!

and then think of how the BV would be invalidated everytime PGI makes a balance change.

[Thunderbird Anthares]

I have a better idea

Stop trying to excuse crappy design and balance by trying to implement stupid crap to justify it :-)

Edited by Thunderbird Anthares, 28 March 2016 - 11:48 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

El Bandito, on 28 March 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

BV is interesting in concept but due to the immense work to make it resemble some sort of balance, and the amount of shitstorm it will entail, I am not sure PGI will ever try it.

Without a good starting point on what defines "balance" and continue tweaks depending on the shifting meta any sort of BV system will be completely broken and may as well be non-existent. TLDR too hard won't happen

[CDLord HHGD]

It absolutely drives me crazy.... The information they need to create a BV is already displayed! All they need is an algorithm that factors that information in addition to raw tonnage.... Just need to find the value of ECM compared to BAP....

[Widowmaker1981]

cdlord, on 29 March 2016 - 04:45 AM, said:

It absolutely drives me crazy.... The information they need to create a BV is already displayed!

Where?

PLEASE don't tell me you are referring to using something like Firepower/Cooling efficiency/Speed/Armour.. because.. well. no.

I really can't see where information relating to hardpoint location, cockpit location and hitboxes is 'displayed' - and that is about 70% of mech viability right there.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 29 March 2016 - 05:46 AM.

[Paigan]

Widowmaker1981, on 29 March 2016 - 05:45 AM, said:

Where?

PLEASE don't tell me you are referring to using something like Firepower/Cooling efficiency/Speed/Armour.. because.. well. no.

I really can't see where information relating to hardpoint location, cockpit location and hitboxes is 'displayed' - and that is about 70% of mech viability right there.

this

Also, even having 100% of that information perfectly available would have next to no meaning.
See my post above.

[CDLord HHGD]

Regardless of what you two think, the information, even for HP location is there. It's all mathematics, all of it. Just have to use that math.

Sorry you don't see it. Not everyone can math.

[Lugh]

Pjwned, on 28 March 2016 - 10:17 PM, said:

Battle Value (BV) and BV-like systems are **** and will not fit in this game ever.

Riiiight. 35+ years a play testing have clearly shown that you don't get good matches balanced by BV.

Oh wait it Pjwned.. nevermind.

Ghogiel, on 28 March 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

But if PGI did try it, I am 99% certain it will be a disaster anyway

Only because PGI can't MATH.

[TheMisled]

BV would just not work. Even in my VND-1X I've held my ground against the likes of Ebon Jaguars and Timer Wolfs. It's less about how 'good' the mech is and more about the builds and player skill, hence why we have mass and tier based matchmaking.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Regardless of whether a mech is "good" or "bad", it still can perform radically different depending on the player controlling it.

This is not better (and probably worse) than what we are working with now.

[Roadkill]

QuantumButler, on 28 March 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Yuo mean like some kind of system that calculated how much value a machine brought to the battle?

Some sort of...Battle Value, if you will?

Nope, that's impossible.

inorite?

Almost like... some sort of system that automatically rates Mechs after every match based on the results of that match. A system that would dynamically rate the quality of a Mech every time it is used. I mean, you could even use a system like that to rate players, but nah that'd make no sense...