57 replies to this topic

[Tangelis]

Ratta, You are right, and I agree with you.... but in terms of translating or using a BV system as a balancing tool, Pilot skill was included.

Of course I'm comparing to the TT BV system which in most suggestions is the where the idea comes from. Pilots had BV's depending on Skill. But the difference is 2 veteran skill pilots had identical modifiers, in turn they were still equal. In a game like this.... I don't think it can be done. As you said it would be insane to even try.

Granted.... FW doesn't factor player skill in any fashion anyway. So using a BV system for mechs alone to equal the playing field of both sides in terms of combat potential....... well, I can't deny it has merit.

In my opinion though.... I think it would only make a nominal difference. I think Scout Derek is right that it would add diversity to drop decks which would be a lot of fun, but I don't think game play would be any more or less balanced than it is right now.

[Murphy7]

It would have to be a wholly different BV system than what is used in TT. Even with BV, there were mechs that have greater performance efficiency for their BV than their counterparts of near value, much like how there are specific variations on chassis in each weight class that are clearly superior to others. Quirks move this around, but do nothing really to alter the basic tenets of this.

I would suggest that pilot skill metrics as part of the balancing may sound nice in principle, but if it reduces the tonnage limits people would sandbag until the tonnage was acceptable or favorable, and then play for a while, and then sandbag again.

And how would this impact the formation of games in FP? Imperfect as it may be, I prefer the tonnage for its simplicity and would prefer mechanisms that reduced waiting and drew people to participate in FP than some other balancing metric.

[vocifer]

Scout Derek, on 22 May 2016 - 07:13 AM, said:

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.

If I'm getting this right, in BV system I can bring a really crappy build, like 6-mg only Direwolf and it will be valued as much as, say, meta build of ACH? I'd say, I would not want to see this in MWO. Let's leave the 8-y'olds derps*t for the games like Robocraft.

2fast2stompy, on 22 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

This would just mean gen rushing literally never fails.

Yep, this is the flaw, aswell as the counterattack counters. And, for current gamemodes, I don't really have a solution to fix that. =(

[Iron Buccaneer]

A battle value system over tonnage would be nice but I wouldn't consider it that much of a game changer at this point. FW needs more immersive and dynamic play to become the main mode. The developers need to look at what can be done to make Faction Goal a true end game and the whole point to grinding mechs and learning to play in quick play. Every player should want to get into Faction Play. Until they decide to focus on the mode instead of tweaking "balance" this mode will have population problems.

[Scout Derek]

vocifer, on 22 May 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

If I'm getting this right, in BV system I can bring a really crappy build, like 6-mg only Direwolf and it will be valued as much as, say, meta build of ACH? I'd say, I would not want to see this in MWO. Let's leave the 8-y'olds derps*t for the games like Robocraft.

I don't think it's that radical, moreover along the lines of if you brought a 6MG Dire Wolf, it would be valued as a HBK IIC or somewhere close to it.

[Zolaz]

Our current iteration of FW is what happens when you live on an island and arent the target audience.

[vocifer]

Scout Derek, on 22 May 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

I don't think it's that radical, moreover along the lines of if you brought a 6MG Dire Wolf, it would be valued as a HBK IIC or somewhere close to it.

I'm exaggerating so that the issues are more noticable. And after playing some games where I saw people building things...

So anyway, should I take that Direwolf instead of a Hunchback then?

- If those two are really worth each-other (hense BV's are equal), why won't I take that Dire? This just legitimates any stupid build, which IMO is not healthy for the game.
- If they're not, and the Whale is worse despite his BV being the same as the HBK's, then it's not really a BV system. More like another layer of minmaxing.

[Willard Phule]

vocifer, on 22 May 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

I'm exaggerating so that the issues are more noticable. And after playing some games where I saw people building things...

So anyway, should I take that Direwolf instead of a Hunchback then?

- If those two are really worth each-other (hense BV's are equal), why won't I take that Dire? This just legitimates any stupid build, which IMO is not healthy for the game.
- If they're not, and the Whale is worse despite his BV being the same as the HBK's, then it's not really a BV system. More like another layer of minmaxing.

Not entirely sure that example is quite accurate, the way the BV system was calculated. Granted, it's been a LONG time since I crunched the numbers, but plain tonnage, engine size and armor value and technology base were also factors in it.

THEN we get to the issue of pilot skill....and PGI's ability to actually define it, identify it and use it properly. So far, we've been through the Elo system where all new people started smack in the middle...then to this PSR thing which seems to work just about as well as the old system did, so it's hard to say they've done anything at all. Not that any of that matters in FW, since it's a warm, murky wading pool of a gene pool in there on the pug side, anyway.

[Tangelis]

Well that's kind of the whole point of BV. Everything has a rating. If done right...a 6 MG dire would take a lot of punishment but deliver none. It would be on par to say a medium that could deliver a lot of punishment but in turn be made of paper.

I DO STRESS....If done right. This is of course a quick analogy, please don't over read.

[Daycrist Bloodfang]

Problem with implementing BV over Tonnage is simply that if you based it off true BV from Battletech Clans would be seriously out tonned and out gunned.

Atlas AS7 -K 1,649
Mad Cat PRIME (Timber Wolf) 2,252

You can field an Atlas and a half to 1 Timberwolf......

now try to field a Dire Wolf....

Daishi C (Dire Wolf) 3,290

That's 2 Atlas

[Carl Vickers]

Nope.

Issue with BV system, cant calculate for quirks.

[AssaultPig]

I'm not sure what introducing a BV system would really accomplish, as long as each team is still bringing 48 mechs.

BV makes sense if you're trying to balance asymmetric games; in games that always have the same number of players/mechs it would just become a proxy for tonnage.

it's probably not something that's compatible with the quirk system either, since mechs with quirks benefiting whatever the 'cheapest' bv weapons are would be huge value buys.

[Naduk]

Changing to bv would be a waste of time
It's exactly the same thing just a different number

The only reason you're even considering it as a balance system is it includes pilot skill rating on tabletop
Thus a strong pilot in a weak Mech can be balanced against a weak pilot in a strong Mech

But for that to translate to mwo , you still need to factor pilot skill
It's the same thing
So why bother making a new system

Just use the tonnage system we have now but it's value is modified by your tier ( and planet settings)

Bv will get minmaxed like every thing else but it's increased flexibility means it will be more exploited as people figure out ways to taker uber mechs with low bv

So fluctuating tonnage based on tier would be better
You know people are going to take the biggest and strongest they can , but as the weight limit gets tighter the choices get harder and more sacrifice is needed to retain power

[Black Ivan]

It would make the game much more interesting, but before it all Quirks need to be removed and balancing has to start from there, including number of weapon hardpoints

[Hornviech]

I also think that the BV System is the Best way to Balance MWO becaue every Item, weapon, equiptment or Chassis has its own BV.
PGI has to use the original BVs from the Books and not a new invented one.
Also I think, when you have this System implemented Quirks, Ghost heat and Long Laser burn times are obsolete.
In Faction Warfare the Battlevalue has to be fixed and due to the higher BVs of Clantech the Battles are more balanced then now and its possible that the variations of mechs you see on the battlefield are greater because you have to choose youre Chassis and your equiptment that suits YOU best and fits into the BV Limit.
This System is forcing the Player to deal with the Mechs and equiptment much more then just putting as much as lasers in a mech as there are energypoints, they have to choose between the BV of the lasers if this suits the System.

[Koshirou]

I would rather like to see a dynamically implemented "usefulness" system, in which Mechs which are very successful (by way of K/D statistics in FP) get slapped with a drop tonnage penalty and less successful Mechs get a tonnage adjustment downwards.

[Helene de Montfort]

Scout Derek, on 21 May 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

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.

That's an excellent idea, all they need is to determine BV for weapons, equipment and chassis adapted for the game, not just taken from TT. Not the same as TT, but similar in purpose.

I like it... It would prevent someone from dropping with a full maxed dech of meta TDR for example, and force people to run smaller, or less meta builds. More skill, less meta, good thing.

That's definitely a thumb up from me.

[invernomuto]

BV system would be an interesting feature but it will be in contrast with quirks.
As we all know quirks are used by PGI as balancing factors so that an IS mech could be "on par" with a more advanced clan mechs.
In terms of Battle Value a Timberwolf (BV on Sarna = 2,737) is two time stronger that a Marauder (BV = 1,363 - data taken from sarna.net, B.V. 2.0).
We could implement quirks in the B.V. formula, but in this case every mech should have roughly the same B.V. for the same tonnage or it will be evident that there is a balancing problem.
Assuming that with B.V. we should remove quirks (or accepting that there could be mech of the same tonnage stronger than other in terms of B.V.) we should introduce some B.V. limits also in quick play (*), otherwise the majority of people will chose the best B.V. mechs for each weight class.
In short, it seems a bit unpratical to me...

(*) or rewards better pilots that chose to drop in an inferior mech...

Edited by invernomuto, 23 May 2016 - 06:32 AM.

[Bagor Aga]

quircks came to us because PGI decided not to implement 10vs12. So, quircks must be in place OR another factors must be implemented to balance rights of customer to play equal... Or not? From my POV this question is about players loyalty to BT. Is there enough IS kinks to start big game? so, not only matchmaking is broken;

PGI decided to make new clantech by emancipating IS. We got loyal claners and too much mercenaries because ... because social factors of clan players no less. So, to bring equality to field BV has no mean as current bubbletech does work for mean is-player. Social factors should be discussed and compensated to make big game reasonable interesting. Good matches will happen not because of ideal numbers but reasonable factors of teamwork being taking in account.

In current time I do not see why not to mix tech on battlefield. Population is drawing, front line lacking numbers, 60ppl isnt enough to overwhelm planet resistance... there are more reasons to ease on lore and let the game survive.
Coming tournament will show how imbalanced bubbletech is as solution 12vs12. If so, will PGI change quirks or think of real factors of teamplay? Till now they have community manager without skill on battlefield.

Don't think of BV numbers, they are not relevant to better metches.

[Willard Phule]

Daycrist Bloodfang, on 22 May 2016 - 08:51 PM, said:

Problem with implementing BV over Tonnage is simply that if you based it off true BV from Battletech Clans would be seriously out tonned and out gunned.

Atlas AS7 -K 1,649
Mad Cat PRIME (Timber Wolf) 2,252

You can field an Atlas and a half to 1 Timberwolf......

now try to field a Dire Wolf....

Daishi C (Dire Wolf) 3,290

That's 2 Atlas

To take it even further, PGI has pounded "canon" flat in the name of "balancing" everything but price. Clan equipment isn't worth the value given in the old TT system. Those values were based on range and damage potential...both of which have been brought to a point where they're "equal" with equivalent IS systems (and still twice the price).

Even if you COULD manage to get some kind of appropriate BV system in place, there's NO WAY it will be able to put teams together based on loadout. You're still going to end up with one side having nothing but brawlers and the other side having nothing but LRMs.

Throw in some kind of pilot skill variable and it all goes to crap. Remember, according to PGI, there's NO difference between a brand new player in a trial mech, on his first mission, and a "Galaxy Commander III" with a bazillion GXP under his belt.

Nope, what we've got is the best they can do.