476 replies to this topic

[Vollstrecker]

Battle Value is adequate if you're talking a simple Team Deathmatch, but from the sounds of it there are going to be other objectives in missions anyway. If the game is done right, Assault 'mechs would be a hindrance in some missions, and there wouldn't be much point in limitation at all.

A lot of PvP in MMOs tend to be control-point or CTF scenarios, just to use examples people are familiar with. While I doubt it would be implemented in this exact manner, it should serve as an adequate example.

Assaults would only be of true use in defending areas while the Lights and Mediums (plus some Heavies) get the lion's share of the work done because they're able to respond to and generate threats more swiftly. The ponderous Assault 'mechs would basically be broadcasting your strategy to the enemy as they lumber in toward their objective.

I'm really quite excited to see how this is handled because I've long wanted to see the Medium weight class have its time to shine in competitive play, and even just seeing Scout designs will be an interesting change.

[Johannes Falkner]

Dlardrageth, on 22 March 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Stop dissing ComStar, sheesh! Just because they use "outdated" StarLeague LosTech doesn't mean they can't be effective with it. Ask some clans about that after Tukayyid.

The Smoked Kitties deserved their fate (arrogance taken to extremes deserves to fail. (besides the utter tactical stupidity of bidding away 1/3 of your force and then splitting your forces in the face of the enemy.). Include the Diamond sharks (1 galaxy, really?) in this category times two.

Lump the Steel Vipers in with the Smoked Kitties and the Diamond Sharked, but they at least learned from the Smoked Kitties' failures.

The Nova Cats were deprived of the Alpha Galaxy C3 when the drop ship was kamikazed by a Comstar fighter. Even then it came down to coin toss when the ComGuards left the cities undefended in order to attack the Nova Cats.

In spite of superior tactics on Comstar's part the Jade Falcons still managed a draw (thank Aidan Pryde and his small laser...). The Ghost Bears achieved one objective and were in position to achieve the second.

Time after time the stupidity of the Smoked Kitties, Diamond Sharked and the Steel Vipers came back to haunt the clans on Tukayyid. Units that should have been tied up with defense were freed up by the failures of those three clans. The Jade Falcons were forced to abandon their second objective in the face of First and Fourth Army reinforcements freed up by the failure of the other clans and the retreat of the Ghost Bears.

If Comstar had been truly competent they would have been able to stop the Wolves. They outnumbered them to begin with and transferred in another army and several divisions. They place the elite of ComGuard against the Wolves. And still, they failed. No, Tukayyid did not prove Comstar superiority, it proved the strategic inferiority of most of the clans.

(Can you tell I would be a Wolf (Warden of course)? )

Oh yeah, The point of the thread...

I doubt a BV system woudl work in it's most basic form for the simple reason that each player is going to have a huge influence on the effectiveness of the hardware. For example, my play style tends to favor high alpha strike and evasion. I like to hit you hard and not be there for a counter attack. This means that I do well with Heavy ACs, PPCs, and Gauss Rifles. I can make them work better than (fictional) Tim who prefers to grind his opponents into jelly with massed light weapon fire like a Pirahna with MGs or a Nova/Kimodo with medium lasers. Two eqully effective players, two totally different results in the same mech.

Such a system may be workable if player proficiency with weapons is tracked but I would assume that the complexities would get out of hand, not to mention the the 1.21 Gigawatts that would be needed to do the calculations.
Enjoy..

[Outlaw2]

Quote

I doubt a BV system woudl work in it's most basic form for the simple reason that each player is going to have a huge influence on the effectiveness of the hardware. For example

Again..BV does NOT take player skill into account. It only tracks what content that player took. Any BV system MWO would use is not going directly follow the TT BV rules. MWO would have its own BV system based on the performance of the content within MWO. We are calling it "BV" simply for familiarity. Its a system with the goal to make more content viable...especially in competitive environments.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 23 March 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Except Im not talking about player skill here. BV is not intended to account for player skill. Its taking into account all the in-game content you take to the match...including tonnage but more. Nothing is stopping you from taking this into account. When it comes to game content, not every competitive game has a "GFS"....all previous MW games did not have it. SC2 and DOTA don't have it. I could go on.

You are also probably not realizing that competitive merc corp matches (the ones for direct control of planets) are almost certain to NOT use the automated matchmaker. These are scheduled events and you know exactly which merc corps you will be fighting against.

SC2 and the others force you into a pigeon hole under the assumption you suck because you have few games played. It has SFA to do with actual game skill. It would be no different than having to start in a Light then Grind your way to whatever weight class you really want. Not going to happen btw.

Yes in the competitive gameplay arena on e assumes there is no GFS, unless you get relegated arbitrarily, as is done in those game you mention. The same can be true of BV. It does nothing to compensate for the real true threat in the Mech, the Pilot.

So what if all the Mechs have some scale beyond weigh class to assure they are "quasi equal", especially when that scale is base on what a Mech can carry based solely on base weight/tonnage (that is what a properly scaled MechLab is for).

If you can't account for the Pilots skills and assure they are all also somehow equal, then it really won't matter will it. The superior Pilot groups will win even with relatively inferior gear.

[Outlaw2]

BV is pretty straight forward.
All mech in-game components are taken into account (not just tonnage), out-of-game player skill is not. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

If PGI wants to take player skill into account.. they can, but it would have to be another system... like ELO in lol.
In merc corps battles a system for player skill is less needed, since merc corps are willingly going into these battles against known opponents. They should be prepared for the possibility of getting steamrolled, due to other team having greater SKILL.

In SC2 all content is available to players. There is no "grind". You can quickly get to your skill level league, IF you have the skills to get there. The reason I never went past Gold league was not because I didn't "grind" enough. I simply didn't have skills. I think you are stretching this way too far in order to make a point.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 26 March 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[StaIker]

One thing I really don't like about BV is that it means the only time I can take a fully spec'd assault is when everyone else can too. It sort of ruins the point of being an assault Mech, it's not a battle decider anymore or something special, it's just what everyone else has.

For Battle Values less than that, the Assaults are always gimped by having to take inferior weapons/armor/equipment, making them much less of a threat than they could be. They are not Assaults anymore in the true sense, more like extra armored heavies with inferior guns that move too slow.

BV could work fine when everyone is from the same team and the BV can be assigned fairly between them by the commander, but add in even one scrub player and we all know who is going to get shafted. For that reason I don't see BV being used fairly on a team basis, it could only ever be player based with each individual having their equal share. That then creates the problem of pricing assaults out of the game as mentioned above.

[Outlaw2]

Anything being priced out of the game is due to bad pricing. It wasn't priced correctly. Assaults were priced out of the game all the time in NBT's tonnage system. Their price was their tonnage, but there were plenty of assaults that did not "cost" their tonnage...not compared to superior assaults.

Also keep in mind that some assaults could cost as much as many heavies or even some mediums. Taking an assault is not a given based on the BV total. However, just like high tonnage totals allowed more assaults, so will higher BV totals naturally allow more assaults as well. But BV will actually allow you more opportunities to take assaults. In a tonnage system, you'd only take a "fully spec'd assault", if you ever did take one.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 26 March 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

=Outlaw=, on 26 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

[...]
Also keep in mind that some assaults could cost as much as many heavies or even some mediums. Taking an assault is not a given based on the BV total. However, just like high tonnage totals allowed more assaults, so will higher BV totals naturally allow more assaults as well. But BV will actually allow you more opportunities to take assaults. In a tonnage system, you'd only take a "fully spec'd assault", if you ever did take one.

Indeed, a tonnage-only system with no drawbacks whatsoever will only lead to the same 4 or 5 designs dominating the battlefield in each weight class. And the rest being relegated to become LOL- or nOOb-Mechs. Factin additionally the eventual option to replace standard weaponry by Clan variants, and it becomes totally ridiculous fast. Even with currency-based cost and upkeep modifiers the "standard" average Mech in a given weight class won't be worth it using any more (apart from eventual game modes where no customization at all is allowed).

[StaIker]

=Outlaw=, on 26 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

But BV will actually allow you more opportunities to take assaults. In a tonnage system, you'd only take a "fully spec'd assault", if you ever did take one.

I see this as a negative rather than a positive. I don't want to just take an assault if it means skimping on weapons etc. If I take any Mech I want it to be absolutely the best config money can buy. There is no point taking an assault if it is only running at 75% effectiveness because the allowable BV can't equip it properly.

[docmorningstar]

MaddMaxx, on 26 March 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

SC2 and the others force you into a pigeon hole under the assumption you suck because you have few games played. It has SFA to do with actual game skill. It would be no different than having to start in a Light then Grind your way to whatever weight class you really want. Not going to happen btw.

Yes in the competitive gameplay arena on e assumes there is no GFS, unless you get relegated arbitrarily, as is done in those game you mention. The same can be true of BV. It does nothing to compensate for the real true threat in the Mech, the Pilot.

So what if all the Mechs have some scale beyond weigh class to assure they are "quasi equal", especially when that scale is base on what a Mech can carry based solely on base weight/tonnage (that is what a properly scaled MechLab is for).

If you can't account for the Pilots skills and assure they are all also somehow equal, then it really won't matter will it. The superior Pilot groups will win even with relatively inferior gear.

Gah

I hate this damned line of thought

'you can't account for the pilot, so there isn't a point in balancing the performance'

Tell you what - I will race michael shoemaker

This my car: http://2.bp.blogspot...ia-1-thumb1.jpg

This is mike's : http://static.autobl...ata_Nano_02.jpg

Anyone want to place some bets? anyone?

BV is a way to level the EQUIPMENT so that the only thing that determines the outcome of the battle is the player skill and group tactics.

[docmorningstar]

StaIker, on 26 March 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

One thing I really don't like about BV is that it means the only time I can take a fully spec'd assault is when everyone else can too. It sort of ruins the point of being an assault Mech, it's not a battle decider anymore or something special, it's just what everyone else has.

For Battle Values less than that, the Assaults are always gimped by having to take inferior weapons/armor/equipment, making them much less of a threat than they could be. They are not Assaults anymore in the true sense, more like extra armored heavies with inferior guns that move too slow.

BV could work fine when everyone is from the same team and the BV can be assigned fairly between them by the commander, but add in even one scrub player and we all know who is going to get shafted. For that reason I don't see BV being used fairly on a team basis, it could only ever be player based with each individual having their equal share. That then creates the problem of pricing assaults out of the game as mentioned above.

Lordy

People are jerks. that means PUGs are going to have to have some sort of 'hard limit' on BV or a smart matchmaker than only puts like vs like. There is no way PUG games would work with team BV that is divided up *after* the team is created.

Now, there are some interesting things that the MM could do: follow a 'traditional' company format with a 'command' 'support' and 'scout' lance, and look to fill those lances out with appropriate mechs, OR allow 'different' BV caps for mechs assigned to each lance (900 for the scout, 1.2k for the support, and 1.5k for the command).

When it comes to the metagame, I think *alot* more effort should be put in at the command level (in terms of efficiency) so that merc or faction companys would have to make active choices on whether to use high-end, expensive to operate tech, OR low end-cheap-to-win tech. It's a fine line to walk, but what I would like to see is a universe where a 'low tech' merc company could afford to stay in operation, even though it was constantly getting the crap kicked out of it (still winning, but often with brutal losses) and a 'high tech' merc company would have to perform nearly flawlessly if it was using ultra-top end gear.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Why do people keep concentrating on just the mechs and ignoring pilot ELO everytime it's brought up?
With regard to mech limitations, the main argument against seems to be "I want to run my Gauszilla", or whatever and basically that the game is not worth playing unless you can use whatever min/maxed creation that you prefer. It may well be that the dev's idea of the game is that people have to rely on their skills on the battlefield, rather than in the mechlab and run non optimised mainly standard mechs. much as was originally intended.

[kidneynabrik]

Since we have the capabilities to test this.. My question is "Why haven't we?"

This could be done quite simply. Set up a server on (or MWLL) MW4 Mercs (w/ or w/o MEKTEK packs at discretion of this or a separate forum), assign a trusted agent or referee to ensure that the rules (eg. Tonnage set to 400 tons, no one goes over the limits) are being followed and notes are being taken. Run about 40 hours of gameplay in each (Free play, limited tonnage, referee assessed BV) play style and look at the results.

If it came down to it, have a spectator or a designated recorder (running FRAPS or the like) record the entirety of each event. (though the facts would only be there to show what works best in MW4 or MWLL)

Here's what I would expect from stats coming back:

• Mechs involved including Total Weight at drop and Total BV at drop
  
• Final Game Score for both sides
  
• Player's Kill to Death ratios (no names) associated with their chassis, game round and a given number.

This way you can see what the end result was and based on the player's capability in mechs, the team's capability in drops, and how the group responds to the no limits rules or to the weight or BV limitations placed on them.

Look at the facts and learn from them, or.....

Let the developers surprise us. In the end, they'll listen to the voice of concern of the whole, so if the pubs beat out the comps, it's just another hard fact of life. Although, I'm not going to lie, there needs to be some, however slight, balancing in the drop.

Edited by kidneynabrik, 27 March 2012 - 03:47 AM.

[StaIker]

Quote

It may well be that the dev's idea of the game is that people have to rely on their skills on the battlefield, rather than in the mechlab and run non optimised mainly standard mechs. much as was originally intended.

You know what though, if the Devs actually did rely on players to develop skills, they'd include defensive skills on that list too. But apparently no one wants to be responsible for their own survival, it all comes down to nerfing their opponents offensive firepower. I say bring on the powerful Mechs because I know how to stay alive. I guess that makes me a minority in both regards.

[Belisarius1]

I feel like we're getting sidetracked. BV is not about controlling configs. That's a red herring. Curbing min/maxing can and should be done by a hardpoint system in 'Mechlab. If we get to the point where we're relying on BV for that, we've badly lost our way.

BV is about team compositions. Stalker and I think that the main goal should be encouraging teams to take the optimum equipment for the situation at hand, but widening the gamut of effective, powerful and useful 'Mech roles to ensure that "optimum" still leaves teams with plenty of options. I don't believe that BV is the best way to achieve that goal.

The other side of the coin has as a primary motivator the desire to leave no 'Mech behind, and to keep all chassis - not just all roles - in play at the competitive level. BV is ideal for this. I don't have a problem with that conceptually, but I can't see a way to save something like the CGR-1A1 except at the extreme detriment of 'Mechs like the TLR1-O, and so I'd rather keep the templar because I believe the absolute best play can only be attained with the absolute best hardware, and I don't want to sacrifice that just to keep T1 around.

That puts us at something of an impasse, because we begin to differ not just on methods but on the goals themselves. Personally, I don't think there's much more to this discussion until we see exactly what matchmaking and the mechlab look like, which is why I stepped out of the thread.

[StaIker]

I think there is a hard limit to the number of useful Mechs and weapons that can be included into the game. Once every necessary tactical role is fulfilled, further additions to content are either pointless duplications of existing capability or are less effective in practice than existing capability. More of everything doesn't automatically equate to more useful choices.

We shouldn't set the goal as being maximum content, it should be fulfilling all the necessary combat roles so that the useful choices are maximised. Weapons and Mechs get shelved not because they are "bad" but because there is no tactical use for the capability they represent. Unfortunately, a lot of the stuff from BT falls into this catagory. It's fantasy, not combat proven tech and it shows. To include canon BT equipment without any evaluation of its real worth means including a lot of things that are basically combat ineffective. I really don't think we should then go down the path of game restrctions designed to make sub-par equipment somehow useful, how about we just leave the sub-par equipment out or allow it for flavor but recognise it is basically eye candy and not a serious choice.

We should be identifying the full range of tactical roles on the field and then cherry picking everything we can find from BT that can fill those roles. Then there is no need to restrict certain configs in favor of others because all configs are useful, if used properly.

Edited by StaIker, 27 March 2012 - 05:27 AM.

[Outlaw2]

StaIker, on 26 March 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I see this as a negative rather than a positive. I don't want to just take an assault if it means skimping on weapons etc. If I take any Mech I want it to be absolutely the best config money can buy. There is no point taking an assault if it is only running at 75% effectiveness because the allowable BV can't equip it properly.

The same would happen for all weight classes, not just assaults.
I think we are reaching a difference that can't be reconciled here. Why you see BV as a limit on taking the most effective mech you can make in the mechlab, I see it as a challenge on making the most effective mech composition given variable constraints. Its something tonnage, dropship contents and map would force you in NBT (as far mech composition goes), but this goes even further. Its definitely going to be much harder to zero in on the most effective composition for any given map, but I like that. I see that as a positive. Not just as the commander, but as a player too. It means more mechs people play with are viable...even in competitive environments. Even if you are new player that still has low BV newb equipment (depending on BV total), or even a player that simply doesn't have time to grind or money to buy the most upgraded equipment for every mech they'll be playing with in drops. It also means more creativity in coming up with mech designs that are not the most obvious, most effective money can buy. It means we'll see a much larger variety of mech compositions...and less never ending 4x4. (Not to mention I don't like where this is heading in regards to the effects the F2P model will have on a zero restrictions environment)

Its true that if you wanted to make a game from scratch that only had content that was viable, it would only be a small percentage of whats in the the average MW game. This is due to the source material it draws upon. The table top itself has a small range of viable mechs if you played with zero restrictions. Thats what we have to deal with. This could be seen as a negative...but just as easily be turned into a positive. But again, this is turning into difference of opinion and preference that I don't expect now we'll reconcile anytime soon..at least not here. Maybe once more info is made available, and we have a better idea on whats needed.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 27 March 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[zorak ramone]

StaIker, on 27 March 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

We should be identifying the full range of tactical roles on the field and then cherry picking everything we can find from BT that can fill those roles. Then there is no need to restrict certain configs in favor of others because all configs are useful, if used properly.

The problem, Stalker, is that CBT (and lets face it ... without heavy modification, and mechwarrior game is going to depend on CBT) is not a game that was designed around balancing tactical roles (or at least not solely around tactical roles). Customization blurs the lines between roles (at least on a per mech basis) even more. CBT isn't a game where every mech has its role in the absense of limits on the basis of BV/cost/whatever.

For example, take TF2. The nine classes each have their own specific roles and each are valuable in their own way. However, weapons configurations are fixed. If they weren't, then you'd probably only see two classes (Heavy for max HP and Pyro for high HP/speed), maybe three (scout for highest speed + double jump), with a variety of weapons configurations.

In MW, if you limited everything to stock mechs, you could create a list of mechs containing lights, meds, heavies and assaults that each had their own role and were equally valuable in their own way regardless of tonnage or CBT BV. However with customization and no limits based on BV/cost/etc., this goes away. You'd only really need maybe 4 mechs:
-One assault: backbone ranged fighting or infighting
-One fast (80kph) heavy: heavy cavalry
-One really fast med/60-65 tonner: scouting, sensors, harrassment
-One super fast light: scouting, sensors

Imagine if there were no limits on the mechs you could bring in NBT-mercs except for the number of players. I assure you every match would be a mix of Daishis (at least post hit-box fix), Gladiators, cauldron borns, and lokis. Maybe Masakaris and BKs.

The thing is that CBT mechs are balanced for a system that relies on BV and/or cost to limit the mechs. Lighter mechs have nothing to offer except for speed due to exponentially increasing engine masses and a hard 400 rating engine limit. However, with the advent of XL engines, only the absolute fastest light mechs (120kph+) have any place. The optimal mass per speed with XL engines and ES internals (i.e. most available tonnage at that speed) is as follows:
54kph: 100t
64kph: 95t
85kph: 75t
96kph: 60t
110kph: 50t
120kph: 40t

Do you really need anything over 96kph for much? Especially if the backbone mechs are goign to be 50-60kph? Is there much difference between 110kph and 120kph?

I understand your point about minimizing the number of mechs for tactical roles. However, this would lead to a very boring game. Even people with no knowledge of the CBT universe would expect there to be more than 4 usefull "classes" (mechs). People with CBT knowledge would expect there to be much more variety in mechs and would be greatly disappointed in a game where maybe four mechs were usefull.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Alternatively there is (as seem possible) the fact that the dev's will put no limits of any sort on the drop other than the numbers involved. They have said that they don't want to force anything on people.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 26 March 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

BV is pretty straight forward.
All mech in-game components are taken into account (not just tonnage), out-of-game player skill is not. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

If PGI wants to take player skill into account.. they can, but it would have to be another system... like ELO in lol.
In merc corps battles a system for player skill is less needed, since merc corps are willingly going into these battles against known opponents. They should be prepared for the possibility of getting steamrolled, due to other team having greater SKILL.

In SC2 all content is available to players. There is no "grind". You can quickly get to your skill level league, IF you have the skills to get there. The reason I never went past Gold league was not because I didn't "grind" enough. I simply didn't have skills. I think you are stretching this way too far in order to make a point.

I may be indeed stretching, but not to make a point. If you put two Pilots in two very similarly BV's rated Mechs, will it really be the Mechs BV's that make the difference? Or are you always assuming a +/- 1500 BV rating differences between combatants.