476 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

=Outlaw=, on 14 March 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

With a full functioning mechlab, BV pricing does become exponentially harder. For awhile it looked more like they were going to have a rather limited mechlab. Now the opposite looks more likely.

I think this might actually work out fine, by balancing the BV based on equipment and weapon multipliers rather than focusing on a chassis. It'd give a reason for boats to be less desirable, but still useful without nerfing them (I'm a pro-boating player if they're available, but I do think making them cost more is a good idea - similar to how MWLL prices reflect if a 'mech has multiples of the same weapon) and also make the player have some hard choices: Do they want to use DHS over single HS? The BV is going to take a huge hit even if you can fit them in the design.

In other words, I'd love some custom 'mechs out there that are balanced to not hog all the BV and even see some armies that are composed of a lot mot more weight and number of guns versus ones that are lighter but have improvements like XL Engines, DHS, Masc, etc. outside of just the standard vs ER Weapons - something I think you could do if BV or an equivalent can be balanced in the mechlab. I'd argue it might be easier to balance BV on a per-gear basis with the chassis only playing a small to moderate part in the equation.

=Outlaw=, on 14 March 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

However, it doesn't look like they will go with BV or any type of hard value restriction, but rather "make it desirable and ideal for players to put together a well-balanced lance/company." That comes from the recent Q/A. I wish them the best of luck with this, since it might be harder to do than a BV system. I still don't see any advantage of taking a cheaper mech in a match going this route....other than lower repair/upkeep costs outside the match. But like I've been saying earlier, in competitive matches outside costs will be damned. You will take the best of the best. I fear this will lead to competitive matches being restricted to a narrow segment of the games' content. This always turns out to be the case in games, but theres no need to design it into the game. The cynical side of me thinks this is the point, and as a hard core player you will be pushed to spend significantly more money in order to acquire and maintain the top end stuff compared to the average, casual player....even at the cost of limited gameplay diversity. This of course mimics WoT P2W economics, and I seriously hope I'm wrong about this.

This is largely the reason I'm worried about the lack of a tonnage/BV/weight restriction setup - very worried. What will happen for those unwilling to pay is they will simply "grind" killing pubbies, then whenever facing an actual organized unit simply break out 11 Atlas and a Scout. There's simply no way that I can see them balancing mediums so that they will be a preferable chassis without a limiting factor.

I was talking about this with another founding member of the Aces last night and he pointed out that even if they try this, the mediums that have been revealed so far in particular aren't going to warrant use over heavies - they are slow and centered around big weapons. You could argue that there are some mediums that might make great hit & run designs, but there's literally nothing a Hunchback can do that an Atlas can't do better if you have the option to bring either.

[Victor Morson]

Aegis Kleais™, on 14 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

If PGI has done as they have said, there will be need for all chassis weights.

That being said, XP can't be the only "pat on the back" for doing ops that are specialized by Lights/Meds. Many people feel that if they are not getting the ACTUAL kill, that their chassis is of little use. This is the "me me me" mentality where the player doesn't care about helping contribute to a kill, but they just want the full credit for it.

MechWarrior has always been way more about the damage, not the final blows, due to the time it takes to kill a 'mech. Often a lucky shot from a pulse laser will finish a 'mech that just got totally mauled by a much heavier 'mech will finish the job - in fact, MWLL doesn't even track kills anymore because of this, just points. Traditionally, these points are adjusted for weight class (More points for being lighter than the thing you shot) which has always been good enough positive reinforcement I think.

Aegis Kleais™, on 14 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

The point here is not to give lighter mechs a multiplier that ensures they get more XP when they damage heavier Mechs, because that just forces the role of assault on them. The solution involves giving them appropriate levels of XP for doing tasks that lights/meds excel at to compensate for the difference.

If it's just an XP issue, what you'll see is the good players in the game absolutely grinding and pub stomping the hell out of the weaker players - in particular people without teams - to the point noone is having any fun using lighter gear, then in every serious organized team vs organized team fight everyone will bring an Atlas or other assault across the board. There's no getting around this; the XP bonus alone is not enough.

Aegis Kleais™, on 14 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

After a discussion a while back, I now see the value in using BV to matchmake, especially when Clan tech comes out. Even if the game decides a 8v12 is fair due to the BV difference, so be it; each pilot has the same opportunity to offset their Mech's potential with whatever skill they bring to the table.

This part I think is a fine; I'm all for allowing teams to go undermanned to upgrade their BV. I've played several matches with mismatched team sizes in previous games and often this is (within reason) more than enough to keep things pretty even, if their BV/C-Bill system is balanced evenly. This has worked fine in MWLL and works also fine in the table top game; often times some friends and I play an IS Company vs a Clan star in Megamek and the Clan star wins; likewise, in MWLL (which is more comparable to the MWO experience) 6 heavies can deal with 10 lights and mediums reasonably as well also.

Either way I'm extremely concerned if there's not a Battle Value system in place that there will be any place for Medium 'mechs - again, in particular given the ones added to the game right now are both about slower speeds and armor/firepower respectively, meaning they're not equipped to be fast raiders (leaving it to the lights) or have any real edge over the heavies.

[Aegis Kleais]

Victor Morson, on 14 March 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

MechWarrior has always been way more about the damage, not the final blows, due to the time it takes to kill a 'mech. Often a lucky shot from a pulse laser will finish a 'mech that just got totally mauled by a much heavier 'mech will finish the job - in fact, MWLL doesn't even track kills anymore because of this, just points. Traditionally, these points are adjusted for weight class (More points for being lighter than the thing you shot) which has always been good enough positive reinforcement I think.

If it's just an XP issue, what you'll see is the good players in the game absolutely grinding and pub stomping the hell out of the weaker players - in particular people without teams - to the point noone is having any fun using lighter gear, then in every serious organized team vs organized team fight everyone will bring an Atlas or other assault across the board. There's no getting around this; the XP bonus alone is not enough.

This part I think is a fine; I'm all for allowing teams to go undermanned to upgrade their BV. I've played several matches with mismatched team sizes in previous games and often this is (within reason) more than enough to keep things pretty even, if their BV/C-Bill system is balanced evenly. This has worked fine in MWLL and works also fine in the table top game; often times some friends and I play an IS Company vs a Clan star in Megamek and the Clan star wins; likewise, in MWLL (which is more comparable to the MWO experience) 6 heavies can deal with 10 lights and mediums reasonably as well also.

Either way I'm extremely concerned if there's not a Battle Value system in place that there will be any place for Medium 'mechs - again, in particular given the ones added to the game right now are both about slower speeds and armor/firepower respectively, meaning they're not equipped to be fast raiders (leaving it to the lights) or have any real edge over the heavies.

Actually, previous iterations of MW were all about the kills/caps and never really about the damage. My point is that you'll always get that no team-oriented player whose more concerned in ensuring he has a high KDR than to perform in a manner than really benefits the team. I never played MWLL, but it sounds like they took a step in the right direction.

I'm with you when it comes to being concerned on how the matchmaking system is going to attempt to balance teams.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Belisarius†, on 12 March 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I'm actually not convinced BV is better. I feel like however you price things, whether by BV,weight,number of hula girls, you're going to end up with 'Mechs that are strong for their cost and over-used, and 'Mechs which are weak for their cost and under-used. This is rampant in BV-based CBT, and is why you see lots of standard engine 'Mechs and lots of pulse cheese; because neither is properly adjusted for in BV.

I feel like if 'Mechs are going to be over- and under- powered whatever you do, you may as well make the defining metric arbitrary, like weight. BV is dangerous because it puts you in a situation where humans are making subjective judgements on how much a 'Mech is worth, and those judgements will be constantly changing so there's no consistency. Your favourite 'Mech might fit one day and not the next. That's confusing for both old hands and new.

A functioning Mech lab (if it's in the game) also plays havoc with BV. You end up having to price a chassis by taking into account both the most powerful config it can take, as well as all the other common ones. That requires extensive game knowledge at the highest level, and is highly subjective. I'll use an NBT example for Outlaw; to price the grizzly, you're going to be thinking mostly in terms of its sniper config, and you're going to price it very high because that thing is scary. But if I'm in a city map and it turns out all I have left on planet is a grizzly, the sniper config doesn't fit my game plan and so I slap HLLs and a UAC20 on it and have it tag along with my brawler team. Do I then pay for the sniper config even though the brawler grizzly is a much less optimised 'Mech?

If you weight BV by individual weapons, you're on an even slipperier slope because you have to deal with emergent properties. A gauss on a predominantly dps dire wolf is worth much less than the same weapon on the same 'Mech when it completes an alpha config. An extra 5kph is the elixir of life itself to a scout shadowcat, and really not worth much at all to my aforementioned grizzly. You really can't solve that stuff algorithmically, but you also can't have an army of brilliant players go through and individually price every single config under the sun.

Not sure... I just feel like it's a losing battle. You get good weight-class distributions by setting a variable max tonnage for each drop. It's simple and it does work. Sure, the 700 tonners are 6 dires and a kit fox, but they don't get rolled all the time.

BV2 isn't perfect. Anyone who has played much under it knows this. That's why they're making BV3. However saying to get rid of BV because of a few issues is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BV still is the closest thing we have to an objective assessment of how effective a mech can be. The great thing about this being an online game is they can tweak their own BV system and do it day by day. Something not giving good results? Just tweak it.

I'm convinced you don't actually understand how BV is calculated. First off you have to assume that the commander is smart enough to deploy a mech suitable for the terrain and makes good use of it tactically. BV is an optimum effectiveness, not an average assessment.
Its calculated from every component in a mech and takes in account factors like speed and pilot skill. There is even a pretty good calc out there that will figure out the BV of custom weapons. In short your worry of pricing by chassis doesn't exist under BV and your worry about how individual components will affect BV has long been taken care of.

Of course I expect MWO to use a modified and tweaked BV system, but the basic premise is the correct one.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

But the Dev's don't seem to be going that way

Quote

Does PGI have a plan to create balance within mech types in matches.? "24 Atlasses yay for steiner fan club" –Bluey

[DAVID] Our goal is not to enforce which ’Mechs players can bring to a team, but rather to make it desirable and ideal for players to put together a well-balanced lance/company instead of just the biggest ’Mechs they can get their hands on.
.

As I said in another thread relying on people to do the right thing just won't work except perhaps with merc corps - who can set up pre arranged groups. Otherwise it's just going to be a free for all is how it sounds.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 15 March 2012 - 09:40 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 15 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

But the Dev's don't seem to be going that way

As I said in another thread relying on people to do the right thing just won't work except perhaps with merc corps - who can set up pre arranged groups. Otherwise it's just going to be a free for all is how it sounds.

That doesn't preclude a balance system. Sure you can joint the queue with an Atlas, but that doesn't mean the match maker will put you in the game with all Atlases on one side, or that you'll be facing a significantly lighter team. Either that or you are going to be matched with players and have a ready room to pick mechs before you drop.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The way I read (and re-read) that dev quote was that they are not introducing a balance system as that was the question to which they effectively said no. Maybe it's just me.

[Bullwerk]

Given the options and my knowledge of the game mechanics (limited as they are) I chose BV/C-Bill. It just makes sense for weighing hte effect of more advanced weapons or modules and such. In the end though it may not matter.

Really I hope there are times when you don't have to worry about team balance and drop in whatever you want, while at other times (say matches that decide planets etc) you need to work around these limits. This will open up the gameplay a lot and let differing styles to play. lets face it if you are a goal orientated and well organized Merc Corp handling drop limits is going to be part of the strategy. If however you are a lone wolf that just wants to take his Atlas onto the field and stomp some stuff (or get owned by lights with better pilots) he shouldn't have to wait for a C-Bill appropriate drop opportunity. They need to make all types of play viable to encourage the game to succeed.

[Garth Erlam]

Personally, my preference is to either match on a class system (IE. four light, four medium, four heavy, four assault), or to just get 12 and match them against 12 players who've played around the same amount of games. I think that veterancy is far more important than 'Mech weight.

Edit: For those who want the C-Bill system, look up the costs of 'Mechs - some of them may surprise you.

[Stripes]

I have to agree with Aegis - WoT style matchmaking will be ideal for random matches. Pick your favorite Machine Of War and let game handlr thw rest.

More organized matches on the other hand, will be in need for some balancing mechanism - battle value, C-bills or just game herself punishing players for all-assault abuse.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Garth Erlam, on 15 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Personally, my preference is to either match on a class system (IE. four light, four medium, four heavy, four assault), or to just get 12 and match them against 12 players who've played around the same amount of games. I think that veterancy is far more important than 'Mech weight.

Edit: For those who want the C-Bill system, look up the costs of 'Mechs - some of them may surprise you.

While this might work okay for now, what about when the clan come out and mediums have more BV than IS assaults? Things could get very unbalanced.

[warner2]

Stripes, on 15 March 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

I have to agree with Aegis - WoT style matchmaking will be ideal for random matches. Pick your favorite Machine Of War and let game handlr thw rest.

That would be a worse case scenario for me. Match after match playing with and against a bunch of random players? That's not a great way to spend your gaming evening, never seeing the same player more than once. It's supposed to be a multi-player game, those other players may as well be NPCs.

I appreciate that there are the faction/mercenary battles for more organised game play (which I plan to be involved in) but the public matches are important too and deserve a less lazy solution than this.

[TheRulesLawyer]

warner__, on 15 March 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

That would be a worse case scenario for me. Match after match playing with and against a bunch of random players? That's not a great way to spend your gaming evening, never seeing the same player more than once. It's supposed to be a multi-player game, those other players may as well be NPCs.

I appreciate that there are the faction/mercenary battles for more organised game play (which I plan to be involved in) but the public matches are important too and deserve a less lazy solution than this.

You can always could choose to form your own lance if you find people you like to play with. I'm sure we'll have things like friends lists and the ability to join a game with at least a few friends without having to fill an entire game.

[Aegis Kleais]

TheRulesLawyer, on 15 March 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

While this might work okay for now, what about when the clan come out and mediums have more BV than IS assaults? Things could get very unbalanced.

Yeah. I mean, I'm a good Wolf pilot and all, and you won't see me backing down from the opportunity any time soon, but you can get like, almost 3 Atlases for the price of my Wolf. I can't see C-Bills being as effective as BV unless they directly tie BV to CB, ie for every X BV, it costs Y C-Bills. (An idea I hate even more now that I said it)

I stick by my belief that BV is a good starting point, and pilot skill will play a lot in the outcome of the battle. That Clan tech is great, but good gravy is it expensive to repair!

[RecklessFable]

I think that from what I'm reading from the Devs (not the speculation) is that looking for groups in "random" matches will be much more important than in WoT. Imagine WoT with a command vehicle (and nobody listening as usual). Grouping for fun and profit!

I'd love to see WoT style tournaments though; with Drop Weight in place of WoT's tier-points system. Yes, I think Drop weight is a decent factor for tournies since it will let the uber-dedicated players use all their toys.

[Outlaw2]

Garth Erlam, on 15 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Edit: For those who want the C-Bill system, look up the costs of 'Mechs - some of them may surprise you.

I think few want a "C-Bill" system with values directly pulled form the TROs, but many would rather have a custom BV system made specifically for MWO.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Felix Dante]

Good opinions from everybody.

Realisticly however, I think they can't put limits on drops.
Not if they want MWO to work the way they want it to.

I do have to say if you are facing a group of slow assaults, you just make sure you have the ultimate defense against large, easy targets.

ARTILLERY!

A large group of slow moving targets is just begging to be picked on by Artillery.

Every Commander style player IMHO should be trying to get Artillery abilites ASAP just to prevent such Assault Groups from forming.

We will see I guess.

[RecklessFable]

A C-Bill system favors people who have no life outside of gaming since they will be able to afford to play whatever they want during prime-time when the rest of us get on. (That assumes you can't pay Dollars for C-Bills).

In other news, isn't a Clan Lance only 3 mechs vs Inner Sphere's 4? Hmmm... (edit, just remembered it was 5 points to a star)

Felix Dante, on 15 March 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Every Commander style player IMHO should be trying to get Artillery abilites ASAP just to prevent such Assault Groups from forming.

I was actually just musing about the DPS potential of 10 Commanders and 2 Scouts...

Edited by RecklessFable, 15 March 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Felix Dante, on 15 March 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Good opinions from everybody.

Realisticly however, I think they can't put limits on drops.
Not if they want MWO to work the way they want it to.

I do have to say if you are facing a group of slow assaults, you just make sure you have the ultimate defense against large, easy targets.

ARTILLERY!

A large group of slow moving targets is just begging to be picked on by Artillery.

Every Commander style player IMHO should be trying to get Artillery abilites ASAP just to prevent such Assault Groups from forming.

We will see I guess.

The problem is that the mediums generally move around the same speed as the heavies, with minor differences at best, given what we have now - a Hunchback isn't all that much faster than an Atlas, for example. If speed is vitally important you'll see a shift towards faster heavies, but not one towards medium 'mechs.

Garth Erlam, on 15 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Personally, my preference is to either match on a class system (IE. four light, four medium, four heavy, four assault), or to just get 12 and match them against 12 players who've played around the same amount of games. I think that veterancy is far more important than 'Mech weight.

Edit: For those who want the C-Bill system, look up the costs of 'Mechs - some of them may surprise you.

I have to admit I'm leaning towards the class system despite it removing some depth from drop configuration (a commander that knows how to downgrade things just right to squeeze in the absolute maximum configuration for a map is fun), namely because I realize that a typical casual player will never be able to properly setup a drop and a bad commander could literally ruin the game for everybody before it even starts.

I think the class system seems like the most viable for a game like this, honestly.

That said, as mentioned, I never thought that C-Bills should match the TRO costs - or that BV should be imported directly either. Both are balanced around the board game and RPG, and neither would be really fitting.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 March 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

I think few want a "C-Bill" system with values directly pulled form the TROs, but many would rather have a custom BV system made specifically for MWO.

I like the latter end of that idea. MWO makes adjustments in what it is implementing, so as such, let them adjust the BV accordingly. I just hope the community doesn't expect them to get it down perfectly on the first run. Luckily for us, the game is conducive to sequential updates which can help balance the game down the line as the devs get player feedback.