34 replies to this topic

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 09:41 AM, said:

Oh okay. Yes seams my mind was faster then my fingers typing.
It is an indiviual BV for each build. The startingpoint would be a basis battlevalue and then modifiy that by equipment, hardpoints, quirks, etc. to reach the final BV for that individual build.

There are several reasons BV just can’t work in MWO. Just to list one of the reasons: the BV would not just be based on chassis and loadout (I mean just think how far they would have to dig into each players loadout ....as players customize so much, not just weapons....it’s armor, ammo, heat efficiency, etc.) it would also have to be determined on per map. A quad lbx 10 slephnir is going to have far more BV on Solaris city than on polar highlands. A lrm mech like the Awesome 8R can be devastating on polar if your team has a narc’er...but it’s less effective without...,and on a map like Solaris, it will struggle. To put all the factors in a blender to determine BV for a mech in a particular match would require a lot of effort (we are near the end of this products lifecycle) and I am not sure it could be done anywhere close to accurately even if given all the time and resources anyway.

[Jman5]

East Indy, on 20 July 2020 - 08:38 AM, said:

I wonder if that's being done for low-population windows? Or maybe something else. Some official clarification would be nice.

On that, though, might be prudent for PGI to migrate all dormant accounts or accounts with <25 games played to Tier 4 a month or so post-reset, otherwise there could be an endless supply of Tier 4s and 5s showing up as Tier 3 -- which no one on either side wants, I'm sure.

Making valve release time dynamic based on player population is I think the best solution here. The oceanic timezone has and always will be problematic when it comes to queue time. It should loosen up during the wee hours of the nights, but tighten up during prime times when it can afford to be more selective.

Edited by Jman5, 20 July 2020 - 10:49 AM.

[DevinMace]

Completely agree, not sure if it is possible though.

[Willard Phule]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 20 July 2020 - 10:13 AM, said:

There are several reasons BV just can’t work in MWO. Just to list one of the reasons: the BV would not just be based on chassis and loadout (I mean just think how far they would have to dig into each players loadout ....as players customize so much, not just weapons....it’s armor, ammo, heat efficiency, etc.) it would also have to be determined on per map. A quad lbx 10 slephnir is going to have far more BV on Solaris city than on polar highlands. A lrm mech like the Awesome 8R can be devastating on polar if your team has a narc’er...but it’s less effective without...,and on a map like Solaris, it will struggle. To put all the factors in a blender to determine BV for a mech in a particular match would require a lot of effort (we are near the end of this products lifecycle) and I am not sure it could be done anywhere close to accurately even if given all the time and resources anyway.

Not true. BV was determined by each mech's loadout and chassis, period. Has nothing to do with the environment or map. A laser boat's BV doesn't change on a hot map or a cold one. In a "normal" situation, you'd be able to pick the right mech for the environment. That one is on PGI.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Willard Phule, on 20 July 2020 - 11:41 AM, said:

Not true. BV was determined by each mech's loadout and chassis, period. Has nothing to do with the environment or map. A laser boat's BV doesn't change on a hot map or a cold one. In a &quot;normal&quot; situation, you'd be able to pick the right mech for the environment. That one is on PGI.

I guess I meant to illustrate what BV would have to be for it to be meaningful to matchmaking. I.E....BV in MWO would have to account for the things I listed to make better matches. BV as stated above would do little to nothing for improved matches. If we only ran stock chassis, you could perhaps develop and use a MWO BV and just write off the map and mode as something that can’t be helped...,but to get to true BV of a mech it depends (in MWO) on to accounting for the ridiculous level of customization we have here...plus the map and mode absolutely effect the values of chassis’s and loadouts (even some great IS assaults on Polar conquest don’t always do to well)

[Nesutizale]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 20 July 2020 - 10:13 AM, said:

There are several reasons BV just can’t work in MWO. Just to list one of the reasons: the BV would not just be based on chassis and loadout (I mean just think how far they would have to dig into each players loadout ....as players customize so much, not just weapons....it’s armor, ammo, heat efficiency, etc.) it would also have to be determined on per map. A quad lbx 10 slephnir is going to have far more BV on Solaris city than on polar highlands. A lrm mech like the Awesome 8R can be devastating on polar if your team has a narc’er...but it’s less effective without...,and on a map like Solaris, it will struggle. To put all the factors in a blender to determine BV for a mech in a particular match would require a lot of effort (we are near the end of this products lifecycle) and I am not sure it could be done anywhere close to accurately even if given all the time and resources anyway.

Because it came up in the other topic. The BV will be calculated like your tonnage in the mechlab. Drop a ML in and its tonnage and BV are added to your base tonnage and base BV. That way PGI dosn't has to bother with each players setup like they don't bother with builds now after they where done writing the values down once....excluding patches

As for the choice of map. Yes a map can change the effectiveness of mechs. On the other hand you don't play on the same map constantly. Statisticly you will face maps that are bad for you as much as some that are good for your build. So that equals things out.
Also there are more maps that are playable with all kinds of build then the very specific ones. Solaris City and Polar are indeed the only ones that come to my mind that are realy favor/block a certain playstyle.

[Edit]
Mech choice after map choice. I think that isn't the best idea or would need some sort of rules.
I mean imagne polar beeing picked. Most likely everyone would be either drive LRM builds or AMS build. Not quite my kind of fun.
Beside that, most builds can be used everywhere. LRMs and sniper and brawlers have two maps where they are limited in use, Polar and Solaris. Maybe River city to a lesser extend too.
Frankly except for HPG (hate that map) I have no problems driving my build on every map...**** I LRM you even in solaris Badly but possible.

Edited by Nesutizale, 20 July 2020 - 12:14 PM.

[Horseman]

Unfortunately, the complexity involved would be, frankly, insane. I wouldn't trust PGI to develop an accurate formula for this.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Horseman, on 20 July 2020 - 12:29 PM, said:

Unfortunately, the complexity involved would be, frankly, insane. I wouldn't trust PGI to develop an accurate formula for this.

Exactly...

It might be a cool exercise think about it, but it’s never gonna happen. The irony is we sorta already have a BV system in Solaris mode....were mechs are actually tiered . It does little to promote variety or differing play styles. Players naturally pick the most undervalued mechs (best in tier)...run meta on them...win a lot ....then most everyone who wants to compete emulates. It’s not a system that promotes diversity of thought and builds.

[Nesutizale]

The basis work on BV values and formulas has allready been done. Sure there would be a need to adjust them over time AKA balanceing but overall you can start working on the first pass right away.

Name me a basic mech or equipment and I can most likely tell you its BV.
For example the LargeLaser is 123 BV. An Awesome AWS-9Q is 1875 BV.

The Solaris system is quite different IIRC. Its useing a "one value for everything" approach that dosn't include modifications made by the player.

As for the mechs beeing picked each season. Its in the nature of competetive play that only a very few choices will be valid. All a developer can do is mix up the meta each season to keep things fresh. Competetive play isn't about diversity, its about doing the most efficient thing with the best hand-eye coodination.

QP on the lower tiers on the other hand is about finding a mostly balanced game so that new/bad players don't get stomped to much. BV can here also help new players with a pointer. The higher the value the more likely it is you found an efficient build.

[Nightbird]

There is no point to talk about BV at all. A simple additive system based on equipment added means you can maximize BV by not equipping armor or heat sinks, and going with all weapons without ammo. Sounds good? Yeah...

[Willard Phule]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 20 July 2020 - 12:01 PM, said:

I guess I meant to illustrate what BV would have to be for it to be meaningful to matchmaking. I.E....BV in MWO would have to account for the things I listed to make better matches. BV as stated above would do little to nothing for improved matches. If we only ran stock chassis, you could perhaps develop and use a MWO BV and just write off the map and mode as something that can’t be helped...,but to get to true BV of a mech it depends (in MWO) on to accounting for the ridiculous level of customization we have here...plus the map and mode absolutely effect the values of chassis’s and loadouts (even some great IS assaults on Polar conquest don’t always do to well)

It's irrelevant anyway, it's beyond PGI's ability or they would have done it in the first place.

[Nesutizale]

@Nightbird
Yes like people would run around like that to do nothing but dying. Sure.
Seriously go run around like that, do me the favor. If you don't want to do that constantly then there is no point to your argument.
Also no armor lowers your BV as well as not haveing heatsinks as it screws over your heat management.

The more on point comment from you is that a simple additive system is indeed not the best. The original BV system is a bit more complex as there are also points that can reduce your BV. For example your heat management.

Edited by Nesutizale, 20 July 2020 - 01:33 PM.

[Nightbird]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 01:32 PM, said:

@Nightbird
Yes like people would run around like that to do nothing but dying. Sure.
Seriously go run around like that, do me the favor. If you don't want to do that constantly then there is no point to your argument.
Also no armor lowers your BV as well as not haveing heatsinks as it screws over your heat management.

The more on point comment from you is that a simple additive system is indeed not the best. The original BV system is a bit more complex as there are also points that can reduce your BV. For example your heat management.

But 10 tons of weapons add more to your BV then 10 tons of armor removes from your BV right? Same for 10 tons of HS. It's just a pain to figure out, and it never worked well. It became an art to minimize BV and yet have superior performing mechs, which kind of defeats the purpose of BV.

[Nesutizale]

Let me get some old sheets to have a look about the tonnage thing....

5ML ->BV 230
5t of Ferro -> BV 225

12t standart armor = 480
3 ERL (C) = 744

Also I remembered armor calc wrong, sorry. Not useing armor just means you don't add BV, theirfor overall your BV would be lower.
A bad heat management is the one that reduces it. So by your example takeing just everything in weapons would screw you over by most likely haveing a terrible heat efficiancy.

As for min/max in BV. Yes its harder and I think it should be. It can also lead to an interesting point where could actualy have a reason not to run max armor or take more or less ammo to adjust your BV. Something very different from how its done now.

I would have to run my own MWO builds through the BV calc...also I think I did that long ago. Damn I need to get the drawing board running again.

The result that I aspect is that you can either min/max for BV or you go for what is best on the battlefield. Are you min/max for BV you will most likely underperform compared to current meta builds.
That would actualy be good and interesting as it would open up more build to be valid on the battlefield.

A last point, should you be familiar with the TT version, remember that we are not forced to build armies around a fixed value in MWO. Both sides could bring as much as they want, the only thing is that both have similar BV in the end.
I know from back then that most of the min/max in BV builds came from the overall limitation on what you could put on the table so you wanted each unit to have the lowest possible value. Again this limitation isn't present here.

[Horseman]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 01:03 PM, said:

The basis work on BV values and formulas has allready been done. Sure there would be a need to adjust them over time AKA balanceing but overall you can start working on the first pass right away.

Name me a basic mech or equipment and I can most likely tell you its BV.
For example the LargeLaser is 123 BV. An Awesome AWS-9Q is 1875 BV.

Tabletop BV was designed for a drastically different game system and does not take into account such simple things as geometry and hardpoint positions. It is useless for MWO.