476 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 19 March 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Even if the mechlab is very limited, we are still playing a game of chicken with game balance by ignoring this. Eventually they will add more mechs, more variatnes, more weapons. There is going to be a wide selection within each weight class, and most of it with the risk of being side lined without a good method of balancing it. Simply thinking 3 of each weight class will do it seems very naive...this is going off what we know so far. I hope the devs have something significant in this area they are not telling us.

And that is why BV will not be the be all to end all. Given a MechLab, there could be conceivably 1 million variations on Mechs and their individual BV's. How do you Balance a Million BV's? Or do you then classify them by something else, say weight perhaps...

This is one of those times where the use of the K.I.S.S. principle may best prevail.

[StaIker]

It seems to me that if the game has to force restrictions in order to create "role based" combat then the roles are not actually performing as required. I don't remember open NR servers being pure assault fests, most players used heavies or big mediums most of the time as they are by far the most flexible platforms for combat with a smattering of other types based on the map and requirements.

There is also the problem of trying to coordinate a company that is made up of mechs with vastly different speeds. In order to maintain any kind of combat mass the mediums in the company will be stuck travelling at whatever speeds the assaults can manage for most of the time, I sure wouldn't want to send them out alone when there are 12 enemy mechs unaccounted for.

I would much rather field 9 heavies than 3 mediums, 3 heavies and 3 assaults. The homogeneous company performs far better than a mixed one in the field, they move at the same speeds and they have similar levels of armor and weapons so they can fight very effectively as a large group. Being forced to take assault mechs when the company really needs to move faster than that is a major tactical liability.

If any restrictions are necessary, and I hope they aren't, I'd much prefer it to be tonnage or BV based rather than chassis type. At least then a company can be optimised for the conditions and the styles of individual teams.

[KuruptU4Fun]

YOu'd actually have to go with a Dropship that can carry a min level (we'll say 60 tons) to a max weight of 75 tons to allow for mech variation due to individual weight.

[Steel Talon]

BV should be function of DpM, HP, Average Armor; calculated after mech customization

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 19 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

And that is why BV will not be the be all to end all. Given a MechLab, there could be conceivably 1 million variations on Mechs and their individual BV's. How do you Balance a Million BV's? Or do you then classify them by something else, say weight perhaps...

This is one of those times where the use of the K.I.S.S. principle may best prevail.

You can make the BV system as simple or as complicated as you want it. BV can be a single value for each mech and its variants that only changes for certain weapons or combinations of components. Or you can add up the BV value of each component (chassis, structure tyep, armor, weapons equipment, ect) This gives a rough starting value the devs can then chisel to fix any outliers. The devs can go about it in several different ways. The point its a much more robust tool for balancing than simply relying on the static, intrinsic weight class of each mech.

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

It seems to me that if the game has to force restrictions in order to create "role based" combat then the roles are not actually performing as required. I don't remember open NR servers being pure assault fests, most players used heavies or big mediums most of the time as they are by far the most flexible platforms for combat with a smattering of other types based on the map and requirements.

There is also the problem of trying to coordinate a company that is made up of mechs with vastly different speeds. In order to maintain any kind of combat mass the mediums in the company will be stuck travelling at whatever speeds the assaults can manage for most of the time, I sure wouldn't want to send them out alone when there are 12 enemy mechs unaccounted for.

I would much rather field 9 heavies than 3 mediums, 3 heavies and 3 assaults. The homogeneous company performs far better than a mixed one in the field, they move at the same speeds and they have similar levels of armor and weapons so they can fight very effectively as a large group. Being forced to take assault mechs when the company really needs to move faster than that is a major tactical liability.

If any restrictions are necessary, and I hope they aren't, I'd much prefer it to be tonnage or BV based rather than chassis type. At least then a company can be optimised for the conditions and the styles of individual teams.

My issue has never been assault fest or the need of certain roles. I have no doubt roles such scouts, fire support, ect.. will be needed. The issue more is about mechs that will be completely shelving other mechs of similar role in the absence of any restrictions.

An example that has been presented was why take a Hunchback when you could take an Atlas. They both have similar speeds, but atlas is more armored and armed. Sure the hb will probably be a little bit more maneuverable, but when push comes to shove you'll want to pilot an Atlas.

The restriction of 3 of each weight class seems to solve that exmaple, since you can't take more than 3 atlases. But it doesn't resolve the issue of mechs of the same weight or weight class. In MW4 there were several mechs that simply outclassed a number of mechs in their own weight class. For example why take a chimera over a bushwhacker, if it wasn't for the tonnage you'd save with the chimera? Im sure we could find some obscure role for it in particular situation..but for the most part you wouldn't.

Just a note on assaults in MW4.
MW4 assaults were made much bigger scale wise compared to the other weight classes (noticeably with the atlas). They were also made much slower and less agile than a heavy..when in comparison to a heavy with a medium. This made them unattractive in matches where tonnage mattered. In most MW4 servers tonnage did not matter, and you saw assault fest. In NR leagues, we were restricted by tonnage and taking assaults was not desirable for a number of reasons. In NR pubs, many servers were also tonnage restricted. However even if they were not, many players opted not to take assaults so they could practice in mechs they would take in league matches (since most NR players were also league players). Teams that took all assaults or were overly out-tonning the other side in pubs were often chastised for it (and usually won). All this tended to promote players not taking assaults in NR pubs. Though many matches were with teams stacking the 70-75 bracket.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 19 March 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Victor Morson]

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

It seems to me that if the game has to force restrictions in order to create "role based" combat then the roles are not actually performing as required. I don't remember open NR servers being pure assault fests, most players used heavies or big mediums most of the time as they are by far the most flexible platforms for combat with a smattering of other types based on the map and requirements.

MW4 No Respawn servers are not the best thing to judge on.. at all. The reason taking a lighter 'mech could be useful there is that they'd rack up more points per hit, with a large enough modifier that a smaller chassis could actually be competitive in the right hands.. for points. That said, 90% of the 'mechs were either Mad Cats or Daishis anyway: Most of the people piloting smaller 'mechs were generally League players testing out new mechlab designs. Long story short is in these games people only cared about being #1 on the scoreboard and not the victory of their team unless it was an organized League match with persistent results on the line. Quick example: A Wolfhound that has done 25% of the damage of a Novacat could still have the highest score. The fact the team will probably lose from the lack of guns wasn't a major concern in a pub match.

Also, when it comes to role, you have to stop thinking of each unit as a specific "different-but-equal" role like Team Fortress 2, and rather, all different parts of the same entity (the team). That's the reason the tonnage/BV system has worked in the past, because the drop configuration changes the style of the team in question and how they can act as a single unit. Simply put, in actual league games the people who bring the most guns typically will win; there's room for some fast heavies and definitely room for scouts, but when it comes to choosing 'mechs whose job is to hit things as hard as possible, there's no reason to go lighter.

I'd like to propose a challenge for the next person who wants to say that every 'mech has a role: Name two reasons you would want to chose a Hunchback over an Atlas. The Hunchback is not much faster than an Atlas, carries less weapons than an Atlas and less firepower than an Atlas. This sums up the entire point I've been trying to make, really: You could argue the same about any 'mech with a similar combat role (Catapult vs Mauler, Nova vs Supernova, etc) where there's just no reason to take something lighter in a competitive no respawn match.

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

There is also the problem of trying to coordinate a company that is made up of mechs with vastly different speeds. In order to maintain any kind of combat mass the mediums in the company will be stuck travelling at whatever speeds the assaults can manage for most of the time, I sure wouldn't want to send them out alone when there are 12 enemy mechs unaccounted for.

There's a reason to take faster and more mobile heavies sometimes, for some specific maps where this can pay off but ultimately you still need the most armor and firepower you can bring to a match. That's why heavies fill this role nicely but not mediums. Additionally, the mediums confirmed in the game so far do not move much faster than assaults or heavies for default.

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I would much rather field 9 heavies than 3 mediums, 3 heavies and 3 assaults. The homogeneous company performs far better than a mixed one in the field, they move at the same speeds and they have similar levels of armor and weapons so they can fight very effectively as a large group. Being forced to take assault mechs when the company really needs to move faster than that is a major tactical liability.

There are definite advantages to taking all heavies and a couple scouts; you are right all heavies or all assaults performs better than a mixed company but that in itself is kind of the problem, however: If there's no limit, all you will likely see are the 2-3 best assaults/heavies and whatever 'mech ends up best for scouting and that's about it, at least in any teams actually playing to win.

Edited by Victor Morson, 19 March 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[StaIker]

One thing that I regard as critically important to the balance issue is whether we will see the map and conditions before we equip our Mechs. If we do, then I can make a reasonable case for people choosing a wider range of Mechs to suit the conditions, if we have to put the company together before we see the map then maxing out capability by going as heavy as possible is about the only prudent measure to take, even if it turns out to have been a bad choice once the map is known.

I'm not sure if the Devs have provided any guidance on this point.

On reflection though, you guys are probably right. Without the NR leagues driving play requirements most folks probably will go as heavy as they can as fast as they can, even if there are better tactical choices.

[Jake Valeck]

no limit. i look forward to seeing a lance of assults get taken apart by airstrikes/artilery from a single scout mech spotting.

[StaIker]

uhg, the thought of non-player attacks make me ill.

[StaIker]

OK then, just the bones of an idea here but I'll put it out there.

Firstly, I really, really don't like restrictive game modes. My aim with any balancing system is to leave most or all of the decision making in the hands of players. That means on occasion, they might conspire to mess with the balance system in a limited way but I prefer that chance to a system that is rigid and forces players to use Mechs or play roles that they have no interest in, especially something like the 3+3+3+3 system. While I agree it is balanced, it also going to **** off (annoy) just about everyone.

So, the objective is to limit the number of assault mechs in a game.

In this system, players would earn a sort of credit with their (fictional) battalion commander. He doesn't just hand out valuable assault mechs to anyone, pilots have to earn that privilage on the field. So each game a player completes would earn 1 point of credit with the battalion CO. These points can be stored away like money in the bank or used immediately. When the player has 3 credit points the battalion CO authorises that player to use an assault Mech for a mission.

The practical effect is that for every game a player uses an assault mech they must have played 3 prior games in something else of their choice. Thus a typical company will have 3 assault mechs and 9 other mechs. However that is only typical, it is possible that a company contains no assault mechs or sometimes 12, or anything in between. But the average will always work out to 3+9. It let's the players decide on their own requirements for each game and means that the composition of a company is always open to change.

There are a number of additional items that would have to be coded to support this idea, such as preventing suicides or AFK players from collecting credit points, but they are just technicalities.

Edited by StaIker, 19 March 2012 - 09:20 PM.

[Outlaw2]

I don't think the goal is to simply limit assaults. The goal should be to limit everyone just taking a small sliver of the "top tier" mechs every match...and shelving the rest. Some crappy assault could suck balls compared to a heavy...its going to happen. So balancing by just looking at weight class is rather limiting. BV goes beyond weight and weight class and you can balance a crappy assault like a charger next to a really top tier medium like a bushwacker.

[StaIker]

I know what you're getting at Outlaw but I just don't like the restrictions on design that BV forces. I want to figure out what the best possible variants are for my style of play and I can't do that if the BV keeps stopping me from using the equipment I want. It's almost impossible to create a game where everything is useful and everything is used. Whatever system is adopted, some stuff is going to be shelved no matter what. And I'm cool with that, it's an acceptable cost of balancing the majority of the other stuff. If there are enough useful choice to make the game fun and interesting it really doesn't matter if the remaining content is wasted.

[Belisarius1]

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

I know what you're getting at Outlaw but I just don't like the restrictions on design that BV forces. I want to figure out what the best possible variants are for my style of play and I can't do that if the BV keeps stopping me from using the equipment I want.

Surely you had to deal with restrictions on tonnage in the past, though? Isn't it the same thing? Every now and then you'll get a rich game where you can take whatever the heck you want. The hope is that that won't be 11 assaults and a jenner.

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

It's almost impossible to create a game where everything is useful and everything is used. Whatever system is adopted, some stuff is going to be shelved no matter what. And I'm cool with that, it's an acceptable cost of balancing the majority of the other stuff. If there are enough useful choice to make the game fun and interesting it really doesn't matter if the remaining content is wasted.

This is still my primary objection to BV. You're never going to make everything useful, and since that's not attainable, I'd rather not risk that level of subjectivity. You're playing with fire when you allow knee-**** balance reactions to occur so easily, especially when those reactions are not (and can't be) in the hands of the competitive players themselves.

I think it's a good option in a stock league, and maybe we should be pushing for it as a for-now thing - especially in a T1 setting where mediums don't get the speed they need to become useful - but I'm worried that it breaks down when you add large numbers of 'Mechs and, especially, a 'Mechlab.

EDIT: j e r k is a bleepable now? Goodness gracious me.

I still believe you're better off trying to implement game modes and 'Mech-to-'Mech balance that rewards mixed compositions, rather than throwing up your hands and going for hard (or even soft) limits. But that's almost impossible in T1, and for now, BV is a much better choice than 3x4.

Once the clans come in with XL engines for mediums, manouverability starts to matter from class to class. Once we have that, I think Outlaw's terrain control gametype has a really good shot at pushing mixed compositions.

Edited by Belisarius†, 19 March 2012 - 11:36 PM.

[StaIker]

Quote

Surely you had to deal with restrictions on tonnage in the past, though? Isn't it the same thing? Every now and then you'll get a rich game where you can take whatever the heck you want. The hope is that that won't be 11 assaults and a jenner.

Restrictions on weight, yes, but never on equipment. The Mechs I put onto the field were always optimised for the conditions to the best of my ability so I could play the game how I wanted. Only in NBT did I have a partial equipment restriction (puretech) and I hated that for the same reason I hate most restrictions, they take decisions away from the player and put them in the hands of rule-makers who have taken it upon themselves to decide how I will be allowed to play. If MWO becomes some ludicrous assault fest, uber-boat travesty then I'd reluctantly look at ways to pressure players away from that, but at this point I just can't bring myself to put restrictions in place before we even see the game play.

And to be honest I actually look forward to the teams being unbalanced. I don't want to know what the enemy is bringing, I don't want to know they are a mathematical match for my own side. I don't want to know their class composition. I want reconnaissance to actually mean something other than confirming the obvious. If that occasionally means an 800t company runs into a 1200t company, great! That would be an awesome battle to try and win. The XP awarded to each side should reflect their strength, other than that, lets have at it!

[Hayashi]

I wouldn't exactly like to go with BV. This just encourages people to find ways to screw with the system by finding under-BVed weapons, and using them all the time. Going by tonnage wise... sure, someone with 3 ERPPC in an Awesome is going to pound someone else with 3 PPC and double heat sinks into the ground. However, I don't think people will just stand there and let their 'Mechs be steamrolled by those with higher tech. They'd get those tech themselves... and a race in which everyone is trying to up-power their 'Mechs is something I'd personally prefer to one in which everyone is trying to down-BV their 'Mechs.

It might be interesting if in certain missions the number of 'Mechs is restricted, but the tonnage must be equal... seeing 4 Flashmen aganist 3 Atlases will be fun.

[Outlaw2]

Belisarius†, on 19 March 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

This is still my primary objection to BV. You're never going to make everything useful, and since that's not attainable, I'd rather not risk that level of subjectivity. You're playing with fire when you allow knee-**** balance reactions to occur so easily, especially when those reactions are not (and can't be) in the hands of the competitive players themselves.

But is it really going to be any different without a BV sytem? We are still going to be subject to balance changes that competitive players will not agree with. Instead of BV changes it will be more stat changes or whatever. Competitive players will always have to stay vigilant on balance changes no matter what system is used.

StaIker, on 19 March 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

I know what you're getting at Outlaw but I just don't like the restrictions on design that BV forces. I want to figure out what the best possible variants are for my style of play and I can't do that if the BV keeps stopping me from using the equipment I want. It's almost impossible to create a game where everything is useful and everything is used. Whatever system is adopted, some stuff is going to be shelved no matter what. And I'm cool with that, it's an acceptable cost of balancing the majority of the other stuff. If there are enough useful choice to make the game fun and interesting it really doesn't matter if the remaining content is wasted.
[snip]
Restrictions on weight, yes, but never on equipment. The Mechs I put onto the field were always optimised for the conditions to the best of my ability so I could play the game how I wanted. Only in NBT did I have a partial equipment restriction (puretech) and I hated that for the same reason I hate most restrictions, they take decisions away from the player and put them in the hands of rule-makers who have taken it upon themselves to decide how I will be allowed to play.

Similar to the above, thats still going to happen regardless. Devs have the ability to restrict you to certain conent no matter what system is implemented. Maybe you really like ACs and the gameplay they promote. Instead of making it really high BV (or restricting it faction tech) they simply gimp its stats to hell until its no longer playable. What better way is there to restrict players from content than to make the content nonviable and take up shelf space? What does that say about player choice and restrictions when most of the content is shelved? Im sure if more content is viable, you will have a better chance of finding something that suits your gameplay.

I really don't see the point in creating content if we are just going to condemn to the shelf. Why bother? Sure somethings are going to be shelved and thats unavoidable, but doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make as many things viable as possible.

I actually like being moved out of comfort zone and use things that I normally wouldn't have taken. I mean honestly with no restrictions, the best possible variant you came up with is probably the same one everyone else did too. In NBT (depending on when you played) this meant Bushys and Thannys on the IS (plus filler mechs) and Scats, Ryos and Ncats on the clan side (plus filler mechs). 4x4 and all that. And I don't even have to tell you the few loadouts for each of those mechs.

Hayashi, on 20 March 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

I wouldn't exactly like to go with BV. This just encourages people to find ways to screw with the system by finding under-BVed weapons, and using them all the time.

Going along with my theme, is this going to be any different with any other system?
Tonnage you will get the same thing except it will be regulated to each tonnage increment. With weight class its even worse since it only regulated to 4 weight classes. With BV it could range from 500 BV to 3000 BV. Thats a lot of wiggle room. Sure some mechs will be deemed very good for their BV, but with such a large BV range you find more viable mechs than if you simply went with weight class.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Just a note of curiosity, take the Atlas. With 15 Variants and 4 Custom designs, the BV (v2) ranges from Prime (min) @ 1897 BV to a Radical Custom (max) @ 2389 BV.

Given that is a spread of only 492 points across 19 builds (the extreme ends) of that BV spectrum, the one thing they ALL seem to have in common is that they ALL weight 100T.

I need someone to tell me how they plan to BV the Pilots under any BV rated system? A player can play as they see fit (both way above, to way below) their actual potential on any given day. The Pilot has to be accounted for right?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 March 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

I need someone to tell me how they plan to BV the Pilots under any BV rated system? A player can play as they see fit (both way above, to way below) their actual potential on any given day. The Pilot has to be accounted for right?

BV is taking into account the game content the player is taking, not the player's skill.
Any player ratings/rankings would be a separate system entirely (if PGI decides to do that).
It would be no different if matches were tonnage based or weight class based.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 20 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

BV is taking into account the game content the player is taking, not the player's skill.
Any player ratings/rankings would be a separate system entirely (if PGI decides to do that).
It would be no different if matches were tonnage based or weight class based.

Not according to some. So with Drop Weight, and its taking into account only the game content the player is taking and not the player's skill, why do some folks want to outright disregard its use (Drop Weight) as obviously, like BV, it doesn't directly allow/account for Pilot skill.

That is why I asked.

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Not according to some. So with Drop Weight, and its taking into account only the game content the player is taking and not the player's skill, why do some folks want to outright disregard its use (Drop Weight) as obviously, like BV, it doesn't directly allow/account for Pilot skill.

That is why I asked.

That paragraph was very hard to read, so Im not sure what you were trying to say. Do want to know whats the difference between BV and drop weight, and why use BV if it doesn't take player skill into account? If so, the simple answer is that BV takes into account weight and ALL the mechs other components. There is much more to a mech than its weight.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 09:48 AM.