57 replies to this topic

[Scout Derek]

Would this be better in having more diverse, unique, and more freedom in choosing a drop deck? Or would it mess things up in your eyes?


I ask this because I remember Battle Value from previous Mechwarrior Titles as well as from the Board game.

If you don't know what Battle Values are, here's a definition of it from the BT Wiki:

"Battle Value is a point-based system for the Classic BattleTech board game to measure the battlefield value of a given unit and to balance opposing forces.

Although it does factor the quality of the pilot, prevalence of a C3 network, and the size of the force relative to the opposition into the equation it is only a rough guideline; it does not take terrain features into account and naturally cannot account for the random element inherent to dice rolling (although the latter aspect is factored into the battle value assigned to individual weapons, to a degree)."


I think in MWO and Mechwarrior Terms it is basically the Tonnage, Armor, Equipment, and Weaponry all rolled into one Value, BV, which indicates it's strength (correct me If I'm wrong).

Discuss!

Oh, and for those who can't read

I SIDE WITH NEITHER FOR THIS, I ASKED FOR YOUR OPINION.

Don't know how else to make it much clearer there and big enough to see.

Edited by Scout Derek, 22 May 2016 - 07:20 AM.

[Armando]

By tonnage or by battle value doesn't matter, each has a 'meta' which people will or will not use. There will be STILL be people who cry about getting wasted game after game but refuse to play Faction Warfare in a group, or bring a mech that even SNIFFS a meta load out.

[Adamski]

Considering implementing a fair BV system for mechs / items / equipment would be more difficult than just balancing the items in the first place... I don't see much of a difference.

[Dee Eight]

i'd be fine with bv over tonnage.

[Mystere]

Building an accurate BV system is nothing but a pipe dream in my book. The current tonnage system is much simpler and I prefer PGI spending their time in things much more important -- like, I don't know, Information Warfare, creating more and better game modes in CW, depth in CW game play like a real campaign system? I'd rather they do anything other than more "balancing".

They've wasted so much time in "balancing" that already has gone full circle in some areas. Hell, some have probably gone full circle twice. <smh>

[Randy Poffo]

It's an interesting idea but you're basically trying to do dental work on a guy with a sucking chest wound at the moment. The problems with the fundamentals of the mode will make it almost impossible to judge whether such a change had a good effect or not.

[ice trey]

I don't remember there ever being a "Battle Value" system put into place for any of the Mechwarrior games. One through Four only used Tonnage or C-bills for limitations - at least, as far as my memory serves.

However, while a Battle Value system wouldn't be easy to institute, I know for a fact that when it comes to Tabletop Battletech, Tonnage is an easy, but absolutely terrible way to balance forces. (I get an Awesome-8Q. You get a Charger 1A1. This is a fair match). Some sort of a Battle Value system would be nice, because ever since they took Repair and Rearm out of the game during the beta, there has been absolutely nothing to encourage players to "Restrain themselves" in the mech lab. When was the last time someone intentionally equipped Single Heat Sinks, for example, or didn't opt to use Endo Steel when there were lots of empty crits...

...but on the down side, the meta flavor of the week is always being tweaked. I'd imagine that even with limited equipment, the amount of BS the devs would need to pour through would be immense, and players would always gripe about it. The thought of devs being taken away from potentially making new game content in order to make a BV system, ranks about as high on my list of "Time well spent as" screwing around with the match maker even more because some players throw tantrums that their pug teammates aren't smart enough.

One thing I think that would work better is a "Boom/Bust" system in FW. We already know the idea of "Manufacturing Worlds" which are known for making 'mechs and equipment, but I would like to see the tonnage for each chassis get a modifier applied to it, based on whether or not a faction has the factory, and how frequently players (from your faction) use it in matches. For example, the Firestarter or Blackjack might be very frequently used, which would add a modifier (Let's just pull numbers out of my butt, but a 10% tonnage increase), whereas the Vindicator doesn't see much use, and if you're a Liao player, you'd have access to the factory, as well (Say -10% and -10%, -20% together, making the Vindicator more appealing to include in your drop deck)

Edited by ice trey, 21 May 2016 - 11:24 PM.

[Adamski]

Considering the freedom players have with customizing their mechs, there is zero reason that Tonnage cannot be an accurate representation of mech power.

Considering the amount of work that implementing a BV system would require, and that it would essentially mean underpowered mechs remain useless since they would just decrease in BV. Which means they would remain useless in Quickplay unless PGI completely redid the Quickplay matchmaker.

At this point, it looks like any BV system is just a whole bunch of work for little to no gain.

[vocifer]

I've suggested this earlier.. this system is a bit different from tonnage one. It doesn't actually have a name, so let's call it "Hangar system". And now, the plans of PGI to create saveable dropdecks, makes my system even easier to implement. So I'll bring this up again.

Basically you choose between 3 types of hangars (drop decks):

- 5 slots 160t limit;
- 4 slots 240t limit;
- 3 slots 300t limit.

The numbers are adjustable, ofcourse.

This would be a bit of a mess and will break the current wave meta by bringing reinforcements neccesarity into a field, which IMO is good. It will cater roleplay and encourage those people who like light/assault mechs only. And this is also a variety of choices, which is always welcome.

------------

Speaking about BV, Derek.. What is the goal of your system? What would it bring us except the new meta?

Edited by vocifer, 22 May 2016 - 12:28 AM.

[Alienized]

i would prefer a rollback to pre-quirkening and go again from there.

i totally miss the times where i could run a tbt-7k with 2 er large laser, 2 machine guns and 2 srm4 with a xl300 and still do 900 damage...

or a dragon with lbx10, 4 med lasers + srm6.

or a QKD with 2 er large lasers and 2 med lasers and nothing else ..... still do good amounts of damage.
now its all about driving the mechs with the best quirks. forget that. nothing has really changed since then about the mechs that been driven. its just a shift. some are still forgotten and always will be, quirks just done nothing at all.

such is the idea of battle value. cant see a benefit from it. just another shift in mech usage but the poor and worse mechs that didnt get awesome quirks or a hardpoint inflation as so many others will still be unused and left aside.

so many things need to be re-adjusted BEFORE BV matters.

edit: BV system might be good thing for pug/group queue than faction warfare. on FW you can do alot more with bad mechs if your team works well and more coordinated. some really can shine there.

group queue is totally bad to play for a 12 man group if you dont play all the meta. BV might help it but as long as the tonnage limit is as it is now its not enjoyable in groups above 6 man.

Edited by Alienized, 22 May 2016 - 12:48 AM.

[Appogee]

In principle it would be a more effective way of balancing drop decks.

BUT do you really trust PGI to assign balanced workable BVs to Mechs, given the clusterfutz that's occurred since they tried to balance through quirks and ghost heat?

I don't think they know their own game well enough, or play it often enough, to come up with something that won't just make things worse.

[Nerdboard]

Appogee, on 22 May 2016 - 01:05 AM, said:

In principle it would be a more effective way of balancing drop decks.

BUT do you really trust PGI to assign balanced workable BVs to Mechs, given the clusterfutz that's occurred since they tried to balance through quirks and ghost heat?

I don't think they know their own game well enough, or play it often enough, to come up with something that won't just make things worse.

I tend to agree with App here. Yes, a battle-value dropdeck limit could be cool. But I dont see the community and PGI agreeing on the actual values for the mechs. The game would end up with highly subjective batte values.

[Tangelis]

I don't think a BV system would change much. I love BV systems, don't get me wrong.... but it has flaws.

Example: All weapons/equipment/armor etc on my Timber total a BV of 3000........... what am I worth? What is the players BV that increases or decreases that number?

The skill of the pilot has a value which IMO can not be measured with any degree of consistency to say that 2 identical mechs are in fact equal in the field.

[Willard Phule]

Let's see if I understand this correctly.....

You want a company that can't figure out how to separate people based on skill or experience, who have failed at every attempt in matchmaking and balance since early Beta, to somehow come up with a way to use the BV system.

I'll just assume that you're relatively new and haven't been here long enough to see PGI break more than they fix with every patch they put out.

Trust me, you don't want this. If they implement it, you'll get the "new and improved Canadian BV system" that will have nothing to do with how BV was intended. It'll somehow tie into trial mechs, new players and LRMs. Don't ask how, it just will.

[Rattazustra]

The problem with using tonnage as a balancing tool in this game is that the entire game has never been tonnage balanced in the first place. The developers never cared about that. Mechs of same tonnage are not equals and they do not have a fixed place in a tonnage hierarchy. Thus tonnage never could and never did work as a direct balancing tool. In quick play the sheer amount of randomizers obscures this issue, but in faction play it becomes all the more obvious.

So yes, of course a battle value system is better for the simple fact that it would replace nothing at all with a system.

But you could not just copy the tabletop BV system. This is no tabletop. An actual BV system would need to include things like the number of hardpoints, even the placement of them, their height in relation to the cockpit, whether or not a weapon is arm mounted or torso mounted and so on. Plus it would need to be based on flexible values, which change within a preset frame based on how many people make use of it. This would make popular cookie cutters slightly more expensive and combinations that find less use more cost efficient. That in turn would promote constant innovation.

[Rattazustra]

Tangelis, on 22 May 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

The skill of the pilot has a value which IMO can not be measured with any degree of consistency to say that 2 identical mechs are in fact equal in the field.

And there you are making a critical mistake, because only the mechs need to be equals. Pilot skill is something that can never be included in a balance calculation, because it is insane to include it. My skill is my personal asset, my one and only edge in the game. A good player deserves to be good. An ace player deserves to win. What point would there be to play at, let alone to play well, when success gets nerfed and balanced?

They already do this right now. If you get better you are matched against better players, but your payout does never reflect that since ace players give the same points noobs do. But since you will have fewer kills and less damage against a team of aces your income shrinks the better you become. This is unfair. The same with group queue, where teaming up with people is actively punished by shrinking tonnage depending on team size. Teamwork and individual player skill is something a good game should never dare to balance, because it is the cornerstone of gameplay.

[Appogee]

I've been thinking about this all day.

PGI would inevitably try to come up with some algorithm to mathematically assign BV. It would assign points based on weapons, engine size, chassis size, amount of armor, etc. And that is exactly why it would fail.

Imagine 3 Arctic Cheetahs, identical in all respects except that one has 7SPL, one has 4ML and one has 2ERL. Imagine 3 Cicadas with the same loadouts.

A BV system would probably rate the Cicadas as a higher BV, because it has more tonnage and armor, and the 2ERL version highest, it has the most powerful weapons. But most would say from experience that the 7SPL Arctic Cheetah is the most deadly mech in that lineup.

The only way to get an honest BV for those Mechs would be a highly experienced player. And even then, their judgement would be highly subjective, and reflective of their own playing style and preferences.

Net: an algorithm would get BV wrong, and while subjective ratings would be more real world accurate, even they would be subject to great variation in play style.

[Scout Derek]

vocifer, on 22 May 2016 - 12:22 AM, said:

Speaking about BV, Derek.. What is the goal of your system? What would it bring us except the new meta?

More freedom to drop decks, as at times they are limited by tonnage, and by doing so you open up more ways to build a drop deck.




Also, people who think I want this implemented:

I don't, so stop assuming I do, I said, in the title, YOUR opinion, and I never even mentioned what side I took as well.

[Scout Derek]

Willard Phule, on 22 May 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

Let's see if I understand this correctly.....

You want a company that can't figure out how to separate people based on skill or experience, who have failed at every attempt in matchmaking and balance since early Beta, to somehow come up with a way to use the BV system.

I'll just assume that you're relatively new and haven't been here long enough to see PGI break more than they fix with every patch they put out.

Trust me, you don't want this. If they implement it, you'll get the &quot;new and improved Canadian BV system&quot; that will have nothing to do with how BV was intended. It'll somehow tie into trial mechs, new players and LRMs. Don't ask how, it just will.

So.... You contribute nothing then, right?

All I see is, "You're dumb, I'm right, and because you're dumb you sure DO look new around here, and it means you have no idea what you're talking about."

Right.

[2fast2stompy]

vocifer, on 22 May 2016 - 12:22 AM, said:

I've suggested this earlier.. this system is a bit different from tonnage one. It doesn't actually have a name, so let's call it "Hangar system". And now, the plans of PGI to create saveable dropdecks, makes my system even easier to implement. So I'll bring this up again.

Basically you choose between 3 types of hangars (drop decks):

- 5 slots 160t limit;
- 4 slots 240t limit;
- 3 slots 300t limit.

This would just mean gen rushing literally never fails.

On topic, this would be the obvious solution if we ran stock builds only, but I think it would mean way too many variables with fully customized mechs, assuming BV would be calculated based on your build, and not a fixed variant value.

If it were variant-based (omnipod-based?) it might work, but then we have the issue of PGI assigning BV to variants. But yeah, I could dig it.

Edited by 2fast2stompy, 22 May 2016 - 07:28 AM.