51 replies to this topic

[Jackal Noble]

It's likely going to take into account the weapons and equipment mounted, in additional to the mechs' BV.
So the chassis itself (pick any mech) is going to have a given value.
Weapons and equipment will add to said value. Size of the weapons and their in field performance will offer some challenge as to getting the appropriate valuations, I would think.
But this would make it so that for each individual mech there will be a sepctrum of valuations available, but within a similar range representing the maximum and minimum valuations that chassis can achieve based on the loadout equipped.

WarThunder had/has a similar system.
Oh my god this could be genius if implemented right. I mean we would still need some sort of tier system for pilots, but in conjunction a properly fielded BV system could go a long way in terms of achieving a semblance of sensible balance.

Edited by JackalBeast, 11 September 2017 - 12:01 PM.

[Mr Snrub]

JackalBeast, on 11 September 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

It's likely going to take into account the weapons and equipment mounted, in additional to the mechs' BV.
So the chassis itself (pick any mech) is going to have a given value.
Weapons and equipment will add to said value. Size of the weapons and their in field performance will offer some challenge as to getting the appropriate valuations, I would think.
But this would make it so that for each individual mech there will be a sepctrum of valuations available, but within a similar range representing the maximum and minimum valuations that chassis can achieve based on the loadout equipped.

WarThunder had/has a similar system.
Oh my god this could be genius if implemented right. I mean we would still need some sort of tier system for pilots, but in conjunction a properly fielded BV system could go a long way in terms of achieving a semblance of sensible balance.

The discussions about: 'weapon X shouldn't have a 2.4 times higher BV than weapon Y, it should be only 2.1 times MAX!' or about what counts as high/semi high/medium/low weapon mounts and how they should factor into the BV will drive me away from MWO for good, honestly.

Feel free to laugh, but I think the MM is about as good as it gets right now, stomps are the nature of team games in general and of MWO especially. No MM will counter the importance of teamwork / AFKs or the simple fact that coming back from 2-3 mechs is incredibly hard - and gets harder the higher the level of play is.

Edited by Mr Goldenfold, 11 September 2017 - 12:34 PM.

[Bigbacon]

JackalBeast, on 11 September 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

It's likely going to take into account the weapons and equipment mounted, in additional to the mechs' BV.
So the chassis itself (pick any mech) is going to have a given value.
Weapons and equipment will add to said value. Size of the weapons and their in field performance will offer some challenge as to getting the appropriate valuations, I would think.
But this would make it so that for each individual mech there will be a sepctrum of valuations available, but within a similar range representing the maximum and minimum valuations that chassis can achieve based on the loadout equipped.

WarThunder had/has a similar system.
Oh my god this could be genius if implemented right. I mean we would still need some sort of tier system for pilots, but in conjunction a properly fielded BV system could go a long way in terms of achieving a semblance of sensible balance.

no way.. they will NEVER do this.....they will give the chassis a number and call it a day and still have lopsided battles till the end of time....BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX IT.

[Judah Malganis]

If implemented, it can give players a lot of control, but it can also be gamed. I suspect we'll see the pros cram as much firepower possible into the lowest BV possible and send most teams to the fry rack.

[Lances107]

The only thing I remember is them mentioning some sort of restriction/set up for solaris. This being said I am not going to go along with not being able to pilot some of my mechs because my BV is not high enough. The tier system already failed, mainly because if you knew what you were doing, you could easily ride the cadet bonus into the higher tiers. The other way to do it was run with a bunch of friends in a 12 man to raise your rating on a regular basis. The other option is to call every match, and you might get into the higher tiers. Other then that its pure luck and has nothing to do with skill. Say one man does everything right, but nine of his team mates does everything wrong. Unless he is lucky more then likely the other team will roll him before he can eve reach 500 damage for psr not going up or going down. So I am not in favor of another system just as broken call it BV or whatever, that I am sure will be, and could be exploited.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Bigbacon, on 11 September 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

when a 8 LMG lynx can pop a 100 tonner in a few seconds it doesn't matter anyway.

Tests with 6-8 MG/HMG took ~13s per stock Atlas leg, so it's well over 30s to kill a 100 tonner with LMGs.

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 11 September 2017 - 01:22 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

I really don't know how the expect to come up with a BV system in a game were people can fully customize any given mech to be either Good or Terrible depending on their whim. I mean I can absolutely build a Night Gyr to be totally useless yet I am sure PGI will assign it a high BV based on the Chassis alone.

So add in a BV and now you have a terribad build Night Gyr being assigned a super high BV with the MM expecting it to carry the match yet its actual performance is actually maybe 1/4 what it is being valued at. Also even if they looked at the build and assigned individual points for things like types of weapons mounted, cooling capacity, armor values, etc, you still can't account for someone with something like superior heat management capabilities being able to pilot a super hot running mech as effectively as another person piloting a mech that runs much color.

BV just isn't going to work as a balancing tool. Way too many variables.

[RoadblockXL]

This might be what was meant by a "BV" system.

Taken from the "Roadmap for September, October, and Beyond", the "Solaris Mode!" part near the bottom.

"All 'Mechs in the game will be classified into a limited number of Solaris Divisions based on their most-optimized Loadouts specific to small engagements. Solaris Pilots will be matched within the Division of their current 'Mech; Division 1 'Mechs will only face off against other Division 1 'Mechs. On the Pilot-level, players will be matched according to standard Elo systems."

They're going to divide the mechs into groups for Solaris matches. I'm guessing it will be mostly based on tonnage but with more divisions than just weight classes so that the lightest mechs in each class; 40, 60, 80 ton mechs, might actually get some play.

Edited by RoadblockXL, 11 September 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[Kiiyor]

I think there are far too many moving parts for a BV system to work.

Are 2 ERMLAS spread way out in separate arms on a Warhawk worth less than those crammed together in a single arm on a Blackjack? Is an AC5 in a nice high mount like a Jager's arm better than one dragging in the dirt in a Cataphract? Will point values change for those weapons?

Will a BV system take into account weapon stacking on one side of a mech?

Too many variables, and they change as meta shifts.

[Ruar]

A BV system based on the chassis variants and not weapons would be easy to implement. Combined with a solid player skill evaluation and you could get some good matchmaking. Weapons would be the wildcard and there is no need to add a value to them.

[Ghogiel]

Kiiyor, on 11 September 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

I think there are far too many moving parts for a BV system to work. Are 2 ERMLAS spread way out in separate arms on a Warhawk worth less than those crammed together in a single arm on a Blackjack? Is an AC5 in a nice high mount like a Jager's arm better than one dragging in the dirt in a Cataphract? Will point values change for those weapons? Will a BV system take into account weapon stacking on one side of a mech? Too many variables, and they change as meta shifts.

No and none of that.

It's just a tier system. ie a CN9 is a T2 compared to a HBK IICA which is T1.

It's obviously going to be abused day one because it will be broke and the mechs with 1v1 and 2v2 gglol builds in the wrong tier will be painfully obvious to any non potato imediately just by looking at the patch notes.

[Jackal Noble]

Well, one can dream.
Besides BV will prolly get pulled from TT values that you can find easily enough on Sarna.
That and or loadouts will probably consist of preset mech builds with an attributed value in order to keep the odds on the table the same.

[DAYLEET]

Metus regem, on 11 September 2017 - 07:29 AM, said:

A BV system doesn't actually make a lot of sense for MWO, as how will they assign a value for the pilots? Not all T1 pilot are created equal after all...

I would say it's a safer bet that Baradul was talking out of their backside.

It WOULD be nice if all the best meta assault werent on the same side while you get the pro lrm snipers.

[Nemesis Duck]

Mech + weapons + pilot = BV rating, and that should be it. I don't think you can further predict the effectiveness of more detail and feel assured the difference warrants the effort. There will be tweaks needed anyway from the TT values so theres a big unknown already. Deal with that first.

Edited by Nemesis Duck, 11 September 2017 - 05:24 PM.

[FupDup]

I'm really concerned about the mech tiering system because it would probably remove any incentive to try to balance mechs anymore. If they buff or nerf a mech, then they would also have to adjust its tier manually at the same time unless they somehow had it automated (which would end up in disaster I can guarantee).

Mech is OP like the freshly released KDK-3? No problem, just put it in the highest tier and call it a day. Mech is complete garbage like the pre-quirk Locust? Just shove it in the lowest tier and forget that it exists.

It's basically admitting defeat that they can't balance the gundams.


EDIT: And besides all of that, builds are just as important as the mech those builds are shoved onto. A Summoner Prime with stock 8/8 pods is poop, but a Summoner Prime (or any variant) with dual ERPPC nipples installed is hands down one of the best mechs in the game.

Edited by FupDup, 11 September 2017 - 05:49 PM.

[Davegt27]

first off calling it BV is a bad idea since that has a lot of negative connotations
I prefer CEV (combat effectiveness value)


to come up with effectiveness for a Mech you first have to come up with effectiveness for its weapons
to get effectiveness of a weapon you need
1) type of weapon
2) potential damage of weapon over time
3) actual damage over time
4) kills

for example I go into my stats and look at weapons stats and you can get
an idea what's the most effective weapons (for you)
that's if you can trust PGI

for me LRMs are down in the 26% area that is only 26% of the time they are used
they are doing anything
but LRMs are what some call a support weapon anyways

anyways type of weapons would be first on the list

say crit seeking maybe would be 100
and so on down the list

moving on to Mechs
you start with can that Mech even carry the top rated weapons

sort of a "AND gate" (this and that)
top tier Mech would be defined as a "1" for ever top tier weapon it can mount

"1111" each one would be a "high" (or high) for mounting top tier weapons

hope this makes sense

[Mjr Disaster]

"So maybe they're finally catching on to the fact that you can't tier the players, you have to tier the machines like in WoT and WoWs?"

Why can't we Tier the players? A "Pilot rating" based on win/loss. Kills, KMD etc and then sort based on that, Tier1 is top ~1%, Tier 2 2-10% etc.

[Valhallan]

Judah Malganis, on 11 September 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

If implemented, it can give players a lot of control, but it can also be gamed. I suspect we'll see the pros cram as much firepower possible into the lowest BV possible and send most teams to the fry rack.

Valhallan, on 11 September 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

And yea the TT system did account for gear (yea yea it had flaws and could be gamed, which is why such a system needs to be frequently adjusted, printed rules based on internal games are rough at doing this which is why it wasn't that good outside of say stock play)

BV should not be a pump and dump, that is the reason why the TT version was easily gamed outside of stock play. The biggest issue in making the system is really data collection, which is mitigated a lot because this is a computer game that already tracks most of the relevant stuff. The ability to live-patch quickly means that the swings will also not be as large as when TT did it.

Viktor Drake, on 11 September 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

I really don't know how the expect to come up with a BV system in a game were people can fully customize any given mech to be either Good or Terrible depending on their whim. I mean I can absolutely build a Night Gyr to be totally useless yet I am sure PGI will assign it a high BV based on the Chassis alone.

So add in a BV and now you have a terribad build Night Gyr being assigned a super high BV with the MM expecting it to carry the match yet its actual performance is actually maybe 1/4 what it is being valued at. Also even if they looked at the build and assigned individual points for things like types of weapons mounted, cooling capacity, armor values, etc, you still can't account for someone with something like superior heat management capabilities being able to pilot a super hot running mech as effectively as another person piloting a mech that runs much color.

BV just isn't going to work as a balancing tool. Way too many variables.

Valhallan, on 11 September 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

Yea Pilots cannot be entirely bved (well they could in TT but only because they got a numerical grade, pilots were essentially a flat multiplier on the equipment) that part needs an elo thing, but at least the stuff being brought in would be "equal".

I'm pretty sure the others stumping for bv like me know that already, BV is not the end-all balancing for MM, because the pilot is not accounted for whereas in TT it was. The in-game analogue is that BV just replaces something like the dropdeck tonnage in FP/ team tonnage in group-queue. For it to replace MM, an ELO system for pilot grading will also need to be introduced and paired with the BV. With the pilot grade functioning as a flat multiplier on his bv similar to how it worked in TT. (e.g. proton = total mech bv x 2, green cadet newbie = total mech bv x0.5)

As for your gyr example, not really, the base chasis BV should actually be really low (once quarks are getting removed and stuff) since it will base it entirely on just your structure. Engine BV would also be somewhat low (not as low as TT though, that is one of the flaws imo) because it's not exactly super speedy, the major points would be on the weapons/equipment. Sure the gyr will score a bit higher because of slender silhouette (total bv x 1.1 or something) and if you put those er micro's on the high points (er micro bv x 1.5) but its still going to score pitifully if you put poor/no equipment on it (which should correspondingly have bad BV).

Again BV does nothing for pilot issues/skill, that should be the function of an ELO system, all bv is supposed to do is say something like, this meta locust is = to this stock vindi, this unnerfed clan cheetoh is = to that meta thunderbolt, this stock furbie x 4 is = that badly built dwf. With an elo system pairing to grade the pilots, THEN it might be able to say something like proton in a locust is = that green cadet DWF.

Edited by Valhallan, 12 September 2017 - 12:31 AM.

[Appogee]

Conceptually a BV system makes a lot of sense.

However, where it will go badly off the rails in MWO is that the people assigning the BVs will be PGI.

As we have seen time and time again in their balancing efforts, PGI don't play their own game often enough, or at a high enough level, to understand which Mechs and loadouts should have the highest .

PGI's data won't solve their lack of experience. It is polluted by PSR, which is now "garbage in" due to the flawed way it promotes almost everyone to Tier 1 over time. PGI don't have any way of sorting the performance of potatos-in-potato-builds vs high level players in highly-optimised builds.

PGI have also demonstrated over many years that their balancing passes are infrequent, and that when they do eventually get around to nerfing something that's been OP for months, they will go way overboard in nerfing it. OR they will completely misunderstand what made that chassis/loadout OP in the first place, and nerf the wrong thing altogether. (See:KDK-3.)

In before: "you're just being salty". No. This is a pattern of observed behavior over the course of almost five years.

So what can we learn from history...?

We'll see some absolutely crazy BVs for some Mechs and loadouts. PGI will take ages to address the BV imbalances that will be apparent to many of us on day one. And when PGI do act, their corrective actions will be wildly overdone. Experienced players will just move on to the next highest gap between BV and reality, and the cycle will slowly repeat.

Edited by Appogee, 12 September 2017 - 12:51 AM.

[Greyhart]

JackalBeast, on 11 September 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

It's likely going to take into account the weapons and equipment mounted, in additional to the mechs' BV.
So the chassis itself (pick any mech) is going to have a given value.
Weapons and equipment will add to said value. Size of the weapons and their in field performance will offer some challenge as to getting the appropriate valuations, I would think.
But this would make it so that for each individual mech there will be a sepctrum of valuations available, but within a similar range representing the maximum and minimum valuations that chassis can achieve based on the loadout equipped.

WarThunder had/has a similar system.
Oh my god this could be genius if implemented right. I mean we would still need some sort of tier system for pilots, but in conjunction a properly fielded BV system could go a long way in terms of achieving a semblance of sensible balance.

I agree a BV system could potentially make the game.

you need to give values to the mech, weapons and equipment. This would then give the build of the mech an overall value.

This value can be used to determine what can go in a FP drop deck or once a pool of players have been selected for QP allocate more balanced teams rather than just tonnage.

You could actually give a bonus to c-bills and XP based on the BV of the mech. This would make running a stock build (after purchase) more rewarding and allow new players to build the mech and skill it quicker.

Also with a BV system you don't have to make every 55ton mech equal to every other 55ton mech. It could stop or reduce the constant messing with the weapon systems and allow balancing by changing the BV.