Peiper, on 14 January 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:
You fear because you have lack of information? We're talking theory here with what information we have on hand. Without the devs input in this discussion, we have to assume things. If we don't, we can't carry on the discussion.
The safety net is that it is something that logically/ideally can be overlaid over the existing game without changing the game code itself. Like a module that fits on top of the mechlab that calculates battle value. I guess the code that would have to be altered is the part that tells the computer to check mech battle value instead of tonnage, then add that to the PSR to make the total battle value of that player. So, if it doesn't work, you just remove the module.
As far as pitfalls and drawbacks, I'm willing to acknowledge them, but of course, I'm here arguing a case, and will present the positive side. Sure, there may be abuses to the system, but that's why we have a think tank. We have to take into account that some mechs have better torso twist ranges, different hard point locations, etc... And so, each chassis would have a value in itself, taking into account quirks too. The hardest part of this system is creating the values, and the reason for the think tank is that one person will not see every side of it. So, ideally, any negatives would be taken into account by having more than one person working on it.
True, equal balance is a myth because of all human factors and because all mechs are not created equal. BUT, balance IS a goal. This is a step in that goal, while taking into account the fact that all mechs are not created equal. Tonnage is a poor indicator. Battle value is a much better indicator. Do you disagree?
And some will cry, some will always cry, I agree. Which is why I try to ignore them when working toward improvement and perfection.
*IF IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY* yes, BV *could* be better. My point is that once you start valuing a mech beyond its weight, the onus shifts more and more to the pilot to "live up" to their BV.
Basically MM could build teams where a bunch of potatoes with high BV get lumped with average players with poor/avg BV. The net effect is most likely a poor experience.
Trial mechs for new players. What kind of BV should they have?
Weight/class isn't always optimal, but its comprehensible and transparent.
So I am not against BV, I am wary of magic bullets with no presentation of pros/cons, recognition of cause/effect nor discussion of impact on user base as a whole.
In one of your first posts you expressed that you had personal reasons for wanting BV. Atlas =/= Kodiak right? People will see that and consider you are looking for changes that will improve your experience, benefits for others would be secondary. We've gone back and forth a bit and I can see you aren't trolling and you are a probably very reasonable person. So all I am asking is to present an idea reasonably.
Anyone can say "PGI should do this because I am right". Show me a thoughtful implentation of BV that would work not just for tryhards, or noobs, or potatoes, or some othe niche. Make it have considerations for most/all players, acknowledge what would need to change in order for it to work. Acknowledge it may not be trivial and realize it may be implausible.
Show us more than just "PGI should do BV!" And you'll get a heck of a lot more traction.
Here are some other ideas to get the ball rolling:
Min/max allowable BV per class/chassis? Bv range by tier? (Prevent hypothetically less experience pilots for cheewng up BV)
Also, I'll say it since no one else has: lots of players have no idea what BV is. I have actually never played TT with BV. So also consider that the concept may be somewhat foreign to other pilots and to implement adds another potentially complicated facet to an already dense learning curve.
18
This topic is locked
