86 replies to this topic

[SilentWolff]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 January 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

SilentWolf..what's this duel system you are talking about? There was no such thing in MW2/3/4. We had multiplayer options and settings, you could host a 1v1 if you wanted, or PW restrict your hosting, but a duel system or setting..no such critter, sorry, NEXT!

Now, you WANTING to be able to do 1v1 is a different critter all together SilentWolf, and I'm not sure that's gonna be in the game at launch..not 'officially ranked' at any rate, from what we've been told, NOR should it be. At some point, I'm sure Solaris will be included, and that is where you do those things..but..you DO realize that MWO is a team based thing right? It's about teams fighting teams..cooperation, coordination...ya know..all those NON mano y mano things that warfare is about, you do get that right? Cause if you just want the 1v1 stuff..you probably didn't pick the best game for that style of play...just an observation.

I simply want the ability to choose the amount of players per side, not a "duel mode" per se. Like we have now in MW4. I've always enjoyed smaller skirmishes 2v2 3v3 4v4. Perhaps they can be battles that dont effect the real world/time map. I didnt really do a good job of explaining that earlier, its late .

Edited by SilentWolff, 03 January 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

As it is looking like you're deliberately trolling (and not even particularily smart), I'll make this my last reply to you and instead go with reporting.

Dlardrageth, on 03 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

[...]For all we know it could as well be a "negligable minority" or whatever. At least I only stated I was personally not interested, didn't start making random stuff up. [...]

SilentWolff, on 03 January 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

[...]First, wheres your proof your not the minority and what does that matter?[...]

Fail at reading comprehension much? That is, assuming, you read before replying... I never claimed I'm certainly not part of the minority, I stated that we cannot know, duh!

And it mattering is a simple matter of very basic economics for PGI. If they were to cater to every single random muppet's whim, be it a special duel mode, fancy lingerie for Mechs, the integration of real-time viewing capability by iPod and what not, they'd never get anything done. They have to prioritize what to finish with limited resources in a given amount of time. Thus they will proceed somewhat market-orientated and look at what many people want, not only a handful. Pretty obvious actually.

Quote

As I said, every MW has had a duel system. You talk about me saying "random stuff", how bout you bringing up MW1, which had NO multiplayer at all. When referring to every MW game, I am OBVIOUSLY referring to MULIPLAYER. MW1 didnt have multiplayer so your point is , well pointless.

Yes, exactly, my car has A/C and your car probably hasn't, so the claim that all cars have A/C stands, because your car is irrelevant to the claim?

I think you rather obviously either don't know what you are talking about or should perhaps think first before writing. First claiming all MW games had a "duel mode" (which didn't exist as a seperate mode at all, thus WRONG the first time) and then stating that of course you didn't include this and that in the "all MW games" because it doesn't suit your argument any more?

And yes, MW1 is totally pointless when talking about "all MW games", right... Of course, you could simply get your facts straight instead, but hey, never let facts come in the way of a good trolling attempt, right?

Quote

And you want to talk to me about not knowing MW and you dont even know that simple fact?

Yes, indeed, not like it was me pointing out the first of your "all MW games" didn't even have a multiplayer option. I am somewhat surprised after this now you even know a MW1 existed...

Quote

And no one said it had to be a different mode. All they need to do is give the ability to set up matches with the amount of people per match, just like they have done with MW3 and 4 So I'm afraid your logic escapes me here.

You did. Is your attention span that low that you cannot remember what you yourself wrote any more? You did repeatedly refer to the "duel mode", whatever brainchild of your fantasy that might be. Let me help you with that issue below. And just for the record, "they" don't need to give you anything. You can ask nicely... or try the trolling approach like this one, but that's about it.

SilentWolff, on 03 January 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Just because YOU dont want a duel mode, because YOU think its boring or uninteresting, doesnt make it a small majority of players that do want it.
EVERY MW game has had a duel mode. EVERY one.[...]

See, you referred to a "duel mode", not something like "training battle", or anything else. But I guess if you write "duel mode" you mean something completely different, just like "all MW games" in your private version of english means "all MW games except the ones I don't care/know about", right?

Quote

BTW when people throw out the troll arguement in their counter point, it usually means they have no point and are out of constructive things to say.

Small logical fallacy of yours here, you had no point to begin with. You are just trying to make one up as you go by the looks of it.

EoD for me, not gonna waste more time on you.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 04 January 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[Kudzu]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 January 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Kudzu..yer funny, I'll give ya that.

I'm good looking, too.

Quote

BV is static based on the MECH, not on what's it facing, and it's only adjusted by the Pilot's BV.

Tonnage is static, and it's not even adjusted by pilot BV (nor any other difference for that matter). Advantage, BV.

Quote

Take that Mad Dog and place it up against a Dire Wolf..it's BV DOES NOT CHANGE.

And they have different BV's, as well as different tonnages. I'm not seeing your point, and I'm beginning to suspect you don't have one.

Quote

Oh..and BV..do you mean BV1 or BV2 cause there's different versions of BV, and BV replaced the original CV system..and..here, READ it yourself http://www.sarna.net/wiki/BV Before you tell me to know what I'm talking about I'd strongly suggest you learn the subject matter yourself first. Tis better to be thought then prove beyond all doubt after all.

My example was from BV2, but as I have said repeatedly I would want PGI to design their own version to fit this game and not use the TT's exact system.

Quote

And how, pray tell, do you figure on actually calculating what a player's skill is, since time in cockpit has NO bearing on a player's skill, just the time spent in the game.

Again, we don't know what PGI has in mind for their pilot leveling so I can't give you specifics, but I'm willing to bet experience unlocks and upgrades will make enough of a difference between two pilots to justify an increase in BV between a vet and a rookie.

Quote

Don't believe that's true? Silly question, you don't believe it's true, or you wouldn't suggest it..so, go check out the games like BF2 that give rank due to score, now drop into a match with someone who's got his stars and watch him play. You get rank due to the score..which just takes time to get no matter HOW bad you are. Or better yet, go jump in ANY MMO with levels and watch the highest level players for a while, see how many of them have no clue. Time spent ingame doesn't mean a thing, it's just time. I literally lost count of the number of high level toons in DDO who didn't even know their own character's ABILITIES, much less how to use them...'dude, yer a 20th paly, LOH and heal yourself already!' 'what's LOH, out of pots'...*sigh* *DING*..'someone raise him' *cleric*'who can raise dead?' *entire group* 'CENSORED'. Not a joke, not an exaggeration, it happens in every MMO out there, time in the game doesn't mean you CAN play, it just means you have lots of time in the game. So..use stats? Already covered that, high or low, hide the stats from the players, doesn't matter, they'll find them out and pad them however required to get the results that favor them, see ALL games that use stats for examples of this..for pity's sake, 5+ years and BF2 STILL has stat padder problems, and EA/DiCE don't mess around with that, first offense all stats wiped/account reset to 0, 2nd offense permban of the account/GUID. A few days later, SAME person is back doing it again..and they had to BUY the game again...people ARE that damn stupid...4 billion years of evolutionary success..and that's what we got...*sigh*

Go check some games like CoD and BF, where people with literally thousands of hours in game but still can't play for jack getting ripped apart by someone who just got the game and is one of those aberrations who just melds with the game. Happens all the time in games where PLAYER skill is the determining factor, not random number generation. There ain't no balancing for that, it's what naturally happens when a player's skill is allowed to determine how well they do in a game. Either you've got the skills or you train the skills, otherwise you are just a target for those who do. I've personally got no problem with that, I appreciate good targets who aren't a threat when I've had a little too much bourbon, really makes me feel better about my abilities, ya know? Oh..yeah..you probably wouldn't know..sorry.

Somewhere in this rant I'm sure you might have accidentally said something worth reading.
All I've gather from it is that
A: You don't understand how BV works.
and
B: It doesn't perfectly guage player skill seperate from avatar skill (which is something tonnage doesn't do either, so I fail to see why that is your big point).

Quote

And Kudzu..60 tons of Mech is 60 tons of Mech, I don't care what you load it with, a good pilot with skills will take it and tear apart whatever gets in their way. A bad pilot will complain about how unfair it is. Me..I'm a good pilot..which are you?

Is that so? Then take a CGR-1A1 Charger and I'll take a Firemoth (Dasher) D and I'll beat you 999 out of 1000 games (I'll give you a .1% chance to be generous). I walk faster than you run, my guns have five times the range, and I have over twice the firepower you do... Oh, and I weight 60 tons less. Tell me again that tonnage is a great balancer.

[John Clavell]

If role warfare is meant to balance the classes out, then maybe C-bill cost to the unit, parts, repairs should be the limiting factor. Not an overall tonnage. In fairness, the devs have said again and again that each class has a roll, it's not as case of more tonnage or more guns wins. Sure you can bring 12 Assaults, but your going to have gimped force (according to what the Devs have in mind). So why not allow for some variation here? From the sounds of things, just bringing 1200 tons of Battlemechs to the field is not going to be the 'smart' option.

[Kezran Vrass]

to me the BV system is the only fair way to do it . i i get killed by someone just better than me well il just need to become better wont i but i hope thier will be some mission system in place so that it not just kill the other guy .

[SilentWolff]

Dlardrageth, on 04 January 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

As it is looking like you're deliberately trolling (and not even particularily smart), I'll make this my last reply to you and instead go with reporting.




Fail at reading comprehension much? That is, assuming, you read before replying... I never claimed I'm certainly not part of the minority, I stated that we cannot know, duh!

And it mattering is a simple matter of very basic economics for PGI. If they were to cater to every single random muppet's whim, be it a special duel mode, fancy lingerie for Mechs, the integration of real-time viewing capability by iPod and what not, they'd never get anything done. They have to prioritize what to finish with limited resources in a given amount of time. Thus they will proceed somewhat market-orientated and look at what many people want, not only a handful. Pretty obvious actually.



Yes, exactly, my car has A/C and your car probably hasn't, so the claim that all cars have A/C stands, because your car is irrelevant to the claim?

I think you rather obviously either don't know what you are talking about or should perhaps think first before writing. First claiming all MW games had a "duel mode" (which didn't exist as a seperate mode at all, thus WRONG the first time) and then stating that of course you didn't include this and that in the "all MW games" because it doesn't suit your argument any more?

And yes, MW1 is totally pointless when talking about "all MW games", right... Of course, you could simply get your facts straight instead, but hey, never let facts come in the way of a good trolling attempt, right?



Yes, indeed, not like it was me pointing out the first of your "all MW games" didn't even have a multiplayer option. I am somewhat surprised after this now you even know a MW1 existed...



You did. Is your attention span that low that you cannot remember what you yourself wrote any more? You did repeatedly refer to the "duel mode", whatever brainchild of your fantasy that might be. Let me help you with that issue below. And just for the record, "they" don't need to give you anything. You can ask nicely... or try the trolling approach like this one, but that's about it.



See, you referred to a "duel mode", not something like "training battle", or anything else. But I guess if you write "duel mode" you mean something completely different, just like "all MW games" in your private version of english means "all MW games except the ones I don't care/know about", right?



Small logical fallacy of yours here, you had no point to begin with. You are just trying to make one up as you go by the looks of it.

EoD for me, not gonna waste more time on you.

Your points here are quite ridiculus. Its obvious to anyone when referring to a duel, the game must have multiplayer. Its clear by the point you were trying to make (which you failed poorly at) you had no idea the first MW didnt have multiplayer. When I'm having a logical discussion, I assume the READER (ie you) will be smart enough to read between the lines. Your just arguing sematics and its quite pointless.

Its also obvious you havent played any of the MW games or your would of understood what I was talking about when referring to duels. Your lack of knowledge of the MW series shines through, when you cant even connect the dots to a pretty simple point, that all MW games allowed you the option to play 1v1. How hard is that to understand? For you, it appears its a titanic challenge to use your head for something other than a hat rack. I've played the MW games since the begining, I've forgot more about these games that youll ever know.

Hopefully now that I've explained it to you like the child you obviously are, you can quit making ridiculus responses and try to add something meaningful to the conversation, although I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Edited by SilentWolff, 04 January 2012 - 07:30 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Kezran Vrass, on 04 January 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

to me the BV system is the only fair way to do it . i i get killed by someone just better than me well il just need to become better wont i but i hope thier will be some mission system in place so that it not just kill the other guy .

I think we're coming right back to the point where the discussion got stuck in the thread about matchmaking. What has to be factored in to provide the best possible balancing and what not? I reckon the result here ill be pretty much the same, one faction wants it as easy as remotely possible (least viable number of variables influencing), the other one as complicated (aka multiplicity of influencing factors) as possible. Hard to find a middle path there.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Having read all the posts in this and the matchmaking thread one thing is clear. There is no easy way of factoring in pilot skill, stats can be beaten/massaged etc as Kristov has pointed out. The only thing that can be taken into account are the mechs. Personally I think some form of BV is the best we can do at the moment. At least to start with we are going to be limited to stock/variants until we have the money or whatever we need to get customised versions. We may or may not have flexibility in the number of pilots, especially if they allow asymetry in numbers.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Dlardrageth, on 03 January 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Only problem is that the WoT MatchMaking is pretty terribad in most aspects, especially balancing. If anything similar to their joke of a matchmaker is implemented, you'll end up with one side having 4 assault Mechs and the other only 1, and more lighter ones to "compensate" or similar crap. Using what WG calls a "matchmaker" for WoT as a basis for MWO spells disaster IMNSHO.

AMEN to this one!!! I HATE the MM in WoT oooohhhhh so very bad....

[Battlefield]

I'll like to trow in an element I'm missing in this discussion: weapon range in combination with piloting skills. If they realy come up with distinctive weapon ranges and not some shoot to the horizon lasers and still do max damage, and make sure that weapon slots are designed to make people think about whether to go long range or infight (or any mix in between), that's the day where I would like to see an Atlas trying to catch up with a pack of long range engery weapon scouts.
And it would force players to actually play their role and not just rush into any oponent within sight.

In itself it wouldn't do the trick, but in combination with what has been discussed before it might even the odds.

[AC]

There is also hinting that the mechs will not be customizable. You can't add a medium laser and/or drop a AC5 for example. That would be dissappointing to me as that was my favorite part of the MW games. There are many of us that are drawn to the creativity/inventing aspect of the Mechlab. If it is watered down to simply adding "Modules" then I know for a fact there will be quite a number of people that get bored with this game very quickly. It also makes a BV system very simple as your mechs BV will just be based on the module it has installed.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Kudzu, I'll just let this go, you don't understand BV, you don't understand how balacing when player skill is the determining factor works, and you won't even take the time to read what people post. As someone else said..EoD.

[Kudzu]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

you don't understand BV,

I understand it completely, and have shown you as such. I have yet to see you demonstrate the same in return.

Quote

you don't understand how balacing when player skill is the determining factor works,

I do indeed understand how it works, but I don't have a simple solution for it, neither do you. What I do have is a system that would better equate differences in equipment, gear, and relative pilot advancement (not absolute player skill). It won't be perfect, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of "equal weight is good enough".

Quote

and you won't even take the time to read what people post. As someone else said..EoD.

I tried plowing through your poorly-structured and grammatically abhorrent drunken ramblings, but if you have such amazing ideas you should at least bother to make them readable.

[Petroff Northrup]

Going by drop weights alone would not really work since in few situations could something like 5 Locusts take down an Atlas.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Petroff, two teams with 100 tons each..1 team drops with 5 Locust, the other drops with 1 Atlas..that's definately player skill taking a front seat right there, not all player skills are twitch/eye hand coordination, there's also tactical and strategic thinking required..and just some plain old fashioned good sense, like knowing better then to drop 1 vs 5

BV..it ain't meant to work when the player's skills are involved..go listen to the 3 Step podcast, it's mentioned, it's not a new thing that BV doesn't work when player skill is a factor in how combat goes down. BV was developed from the original CV system, it's based purely on the numbers, Mech size, what's on the Mech, and you can also factor in the Pilot(avatar) skills that are, again, pure numbers. The BV system allows you to put 2 forces into the field that are matched on the FORCE they can bring to the table, NOT on the skills of the players..seriously, TERRAIN has no influence on BV, neither do enviromental conditions, there's nothing but the straight numbers from the gear involved. A Mad Dog Alpha has the same BV if it's facing an Atlas, Catapult, Dire Wolf or a company of mixed Heavy and Assault IS Mechs, it's BV is a static unchanging number. ALL BVs are that way, this is the Mech, this is what's on it, this is the BV from that..only 1 thing can alter it, factoring in the PILOT skills from the TT game..simple numbers that are static and have the SAME exact influence on the final BV no matter what Mech is being used, no matter what the terrain and enviroment is like or what the targets are. TT system for dealing with static numbers, nothing more. And it's totally useless when the player's skills get involved, even in TT this is true, tactical and strategic skills can make BV a worthless measuring stick.

Now, in a video game, where player skill will be more then just a little factor but instead a big factor, BV becomes totally useless. 60 ton Mad Dog A vs a Catapult..that Mad Dog has a much better BV, but if the PILOT can't hit jack, doesn't understand how to use LRMs and is just not a very good player while the Cat pilot is a dead shot and knows exactly how to play the terrain and enviroment..guess what, that Mad Dog is just so much scrap, doesn't matter what the BV says. Kudzu pointed out exactly how messed up the BV system is with his really bad Fire Moth vs Charger bit. He assumes that BV matters more then player skill in a video game. He'd be rather surprised when he finds out I won't let him take advantage of his speed or greater range, much less when he discovers that my aim isn't randomly scattered by the RNG system in TT, it's dead on and his cockpit is my target every single time I squeeze the trigger. MY skill as a player, not the Mech's limitations, that's what makes the difference between who walks away and who's a victim. Anyone that's played online games should be aware of the simple fact, it ain't the machine, it's the pilot.

[Zenehre]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Petroff, two teams with 100 tons each..1 team drops with 5 Locust, the other drops with 1 Atlas..that's definately player skill taking a front seat right there, not all player skills are twitch/eye hand coordination, there's also tactical and strategic thinking required..and just some plain old fashioned good sense, like knowing better then to drop 1 vs 5

BV..it ain't meant to work when the player's skills are involved..go listen to the 3 Step podcast, it's mentioned, it's not a new thing that BV doesn't work when player skill is a factor in how combat goes down. BV was developed from the original CV system, it's based purely on the numbers, Mech size, what's on the Mech, and you can also factor in the Pilot(avatar) skills that are, again, pure numbers. The BV system allows you to put 2 forces into the field that are matched on the FORCE they can bring to the table, NOT on the skills of the players..seriously, TERRAIN has no influence on BV, neither do enviromental conditions, there's nothing but the straight numbers from the gear involved. A Mad Dog Alpha has the same BV if it's facing an Atlas, Catapult, Dire Wolf or a company of mixed Heavy and Assault IS Mechs, it's BV is a static unchanging number. ALL BVs are that way, this is the Mech, this is what's on it, this is the BV from that..only 1 thing can alter it, factoring in the PILOT skills from the TT game..simple numbers that are static and have the SAME exact influence on the final BV no matter what Mech is being used, no matter what the terrain and enviroment is like or what the targets are. TT system for dealing with static numbers, nothing more. And it's totally useless when the player's skills get involved, even in TT this is true, tactical and strategic skills can make BV a worthless measuring stick.

Now, in a video game, where player skill will be more then just a little factor but instead a big factor, BV becomes totally useless. 60 ton Mad Dog A vs a Catapult..that Mad Dog has a much better BV, but if the PILOT can't hit jack, doesn't understand how to use LRMs and is just not a very good player while the Cat pilot is a dead shot and knows exactly how to play the terrain and enviroment..guess what, that Mad Dog is just so much scrap, doesn't matter what the BV says. Kudzu pointed out exactly how messed up the BV system is with his really bad Fire Moth vs Charger bit. He assumes that BV matters more then player skill in a video game. He'd be rather surprised when he finds out I won't let him take advantage of his speed or greater range, much less when he discovers that my aim isn't randomly scattered by the RNG system in TT, it's dead on and his cockpit is my target every single time I squeeze the trigger. MY skill as a player, not the Mech's limitations, that's what makes the difference between who walks away and who's a victim. Anyone that's played online games should be aware of the simple fact, it ain't the machine, it's the pilot.

Now, if im reading this debate between you two right, you're saying that no system that looks at only hte mechs and what they have on them, or how much they weigh, or how advanced the character (not the person behind hte character) is, wont work because players have different skills and he's saying that player skill is next to impossible to put to numbers, and so the best option we have is BV, since it factors in the most things we have available that are measurable.

Quite frankly, i don't see your point, and agree almost entirely with him. We're this a 1v1 game, we could use a modified Elo system to gauge a person's skill and match them appropriately. LoL tries to do this with 5v5 groups to limited success. 8v8 or 12v12 jsut isnt feasible for that type of system. So thats effectively off hte list of things we can feed into matchmaker. Whats left? Well, you have all the static numbers contained within a BV number to use. And you would not disagree that BV is better than just raw tonnage would you?

There really isnt a system available to accurately measure player skill outside of 1v1 situations, and as such, we have to make do with the best we can. Which in this case seems to be, a modified BV system.


P.S. As for your arguement about BV being static so therefor its bad......Excuse me what? That's the entire point of it. You have a number, for simplicities sake say its 3000. This number represents the raw power of that mech (player skill being an un-quantifiable modifier on that number). If you match up 3000 BV mech vs a completely different, but still 3000 BV mech, you can say that match is perfectly fair, only limited by player skill. Of course, a mech with a BV of 3000 is no match for a BV of 5000 (again random simple numbers). That number should NOT be changed just because the mech is up against an oppoenent rated 2k above its last opponent, the mech is still the same, it still has the same charcteristics and performance abilities, so it should still have the same rating. Your opponent should have no bearing on the number representing your own mech. The matchmaker would see that BV, and match you up against a similar BV. I do not understand your notion that what enemies are on the feild should impact the BV of your mech when the only time BV would be calculated is before the match when determining who to stick you up against (searching for as close to the same nubmer as possible of course).

[Kristov Kerensky]

BV isn't meant to be used when player skill influences the outcome, that's not just my opinion, go listen to the 3 Steps podcast, BV was never meant to be used when player skill gets into the mix, it has no meaning if you don't use ONLY the numbers. You are free to disagree all you want, doesn't change anything, you want to use something that's literally not designed to be used as you want.

Here's something that maybe will make clear why BV is bad. BV limits would mean Clans would be restricted to using Light Mechs pretty much all the time due to how much BV value they have compared to IS Mechs using IS Tech at the 3050 mark..did that not occur to you folks at all? In about..lets see..first IS Omni is 3056, so 6 years before the IS Mechs would be getting CLOSER to the Clans on BV, but they'll still be behind by more then a little bit. And I don't know about YOU, but I would absolutely hate being a Clan player(which you WILL be able to do when they are added in a year!) because I know I'll ALWAYS be in a damn Light Mech for the next 5 years.


Tonnage..no advantage or disadvantage by Tech, each side gets the same mass to use to apply as much force as possible, using their own skills and abilities to determine how best to use that tonnage. Oddly enough it's worked for the previous MW titles..it was even used in the MPBT titles, worked great. It's not hard to exceed BV before you exceed tonnage/space, but it's impossible to exceed tonnage/space before you actually run out of tonnage/space. And since we will all be IS at the start of this game, what I can pack into 100 tons is exactly what YOU can pack into 100 tons, there's literally no way I can get more force then you can..that comes later, when the Clans show up and their Tech gets introduced. And using this silly BV system that was never meant to be used as you want to use it means..all those Clan players will be stuck in Light Mechs for the next 5 years...

But hey, I'm actually cool with that, I'll be IS, won't bother me one little bit to face those Adders in my Atlas(BV favors the Adder!). Really..you folks really SHOULD look at the actual BVs before you speak up.

[Dlardrageth]

To be fair, Kristov, we don't know for sure if you ever will be able to pilot a ClanMech in MWO. PGI could as well turn them NPC for all we know right here. Nor can we know what future expansions will bring in terms of battle sizes, game modes, etc. Thinking 6 years ahead without foreknowledge is a tad speculative, don't you think?

Edited by Dlardrageth, 04 January 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Kudzu]

Let's break it down slowly for Kristov:

Pure tonnage

• Used to balanced sides.
  
• Each side drops with the same weight.

BV System

• Used to balance sides
  
• Each side drops with a similar BV (does not have to be exact, but close.)

So far, they both do the same things. Let's start naming off things they don't do.

Pure Tonnage

• Does not take individual player skill into account
  
• Does not take pilot avatar skill into account
  
• Does not take differences in design, equipment, speed, range, or anything other than pure weight into account.

BV System

• Does not take individual player skill into account

Hrm... So far the BV system does everything the tonnage system does and then it does more.

You're so hung up on the TT BV system that you're missing the point when we say "Use a similar system but redesign it for use in MW:O". As far as Clan vs IS fights-- 5 mixed weight Clan mechs vs 8-12 IS mechs tends to be a pretty good fight for both sides given the tech difference.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Dlardregeth, we DO know that we'll be able to play as Clan, that was said in the 3 Step podcast, they are even looking to passively enforce the Clan's honor system, Zellbringen, by rewarding those Clan players who follow it and not rewarding those who don't. So it's not speculation, it's a given, we WILL be able to play as Clan and use Clan Mechs/Tech. And using BV, anyone on the Clan side will be fielding Light Mechs against Heavy and Assault IS Mechs, that's what the BV system enforces.

Kudzu, refrain from the personal attacks, you've already removed all doubt..next I hit the Report button. And what 5 mixed weight Clan Mechs will equal the BV of 8-12 IS Mechs? I don't consider 3Lights and 2 Mediums going up against 8-12 Heavys and Assaults a good match..you do? Have you bothered to look at the actual BVs listed for IS Mechs of the appropiate time? Obviously not, because I'm not joking or making assumptions about an Adder and an Atlas being a BV match, it actually gives the Adder the advantage. Seriously, some of you need to actually LOOK at the BV numbers for IS Mechs of 3049 and compare them to Clan Mechs, see just how great the disparity really is. FASA totally screwed the pooch when they dropped the Clans into BTech, there was no thought to balance, no thought to how badly the Clans overpowered the IS.

You say 'redo the BV system to fit MWO'..ok..so we do that..guess what happens to the BV..the SAME disparity shows up because the Clans ARE that overpowered compared to the IS, that is a simple cold hard fact that no one can deny. You fail to acknowledge this, even after it's pointed out, 'just use a system redesigned for MWO'..seriously?

Avatar skills are going to make you more efficient in battle, they won't make you BETTER at playing the game, big difference there. Again, PGI has made it clear, if you don't have the actual player skills, the avatar skills won't compensate for that lack. If you can't hit a target with an unscoped rifle, putting a scope on it won't make you hit the target.

We're getting 12 v 12 combat, at least that's the plan currently, actual testing will show if the system can handle that, if not, then 8 v 8. For Clan vs IS, that'll be 10 v 12 according to PGI, Star vs Company, which is actually highly favorable for the Clans..but oh well, that's where player skill takes over for the tech issues, you got it or you don't, and we'll know before the Clans hit who has it and who doesn't. Tonnage works for these amounts of players, lets you get full teams on both sides. Going BV..are you kidding? 2 Stars vs a Company..3050 IS Tech? 10 Clan Lights vs 12 IS Heavys and Assaults...cause that IS what the BV's will put you in, even IF you modify BV to fit MWO, because the Clan Tech disparity is just that damn big. And that's assuming you actually put all 10 Clan players in motion..if you don't, cut them down to 5, you could go with some Mediums and Lights! But you also just kicked 5 players out of the game..that's not a good idea. Or had you not thought of that either?