476 replies to this topic

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 02 May 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Ummm, my guess would be... everyone plays using the same Tech Levels.

Ok, I will redo my first thought. Those that do that, play L1 Tech vs L3 Tech are:

1) Simply either brain dead stupid or

2) Insert your most loathed IS House here.

So yeah....how exactly will you ensure everyone will play the same tech, if thats what you want? The devil is in the details..
Are you implying there will be separate all level 1 tech and all level 2 tech matches, ect...?
What if you want to play with your friend that only has level 1 tech? Tech down in order to play with him? Or will he play in your tech 2 environment and get curb stomped?
What if you prefer tech 1 gameplay, over what tech 2?
What if you like a mix of both (or all 3 once tech 3 rolls around).
What if a new player wants to participate in competitive play. SOL until he gets tech 2?

Lets pretend they go with a "BV" system. With differing BV levels you can have mixes of techs. Depending on the BV total you can have essentially all tech 1 matches or tech 2 matches. You can play with your newbie friend, without having to gimp yourself. You can play competitively from day 1 without worrying about first grinding your tech up. Of course in high BV competitive matches you might be SOL as a new player, but you are not completely shut out from it either. And finally, something I've hammered on before, you ensure a larger portion of the game content isn't completely sidelined and mothballed even in the highest levels.

DavidHurricane, on 02 May 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Well, table top isn't RTS (real time strategy, for those who don't n=know what RTS is) like this.

.....
......RTS, really? I don't even know how to begin responding to this.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 02 May 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[Kudzu]

Victor Morson, on 02 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

There's an alarming number of people that feel that pilots should be able to heroically overcome odds, which can sometimes happen against weaker players.

But at the end of the day, if you have two pilots of even slightly different skill (say 10% difference, for the sake of argument), the one with the firepower/armor advantage is going to win. Now, if you figure this into a focus-fired team situation (1 medium vs 1 heavy can be done; 4 mediums vs 4 heavies cannot, due to in the inability to exploit blind spots) it just gets worse.

If you put a slightly worse pilot in a Dire Wolf and made them face a Hunchback, the Hunchback pilot is toast. If you swap it, you end up with the same results, shy of damage. If you amp that to 4 Dire Wolf vs 4 Hunchbacks and upped the skill disparity to 5x the Hunchbacks would be lucky to even get some shots in. It's just a reality of how balance in BattleTech works. It's not the fault of the Hunchback pilots that they "didn't overcome the odds."

This is like pitting a small time lightweight boxer against a heavy weight and then saying "Well the lightweight could have overcome the odds!" It's just wrong.

And you've swung the topic right back around to exactly why a BV-type system should be used. One on one a Hunchback will rarely win against a Dire Wolf... but if we balance the sides (I'll use the TT BV2 system for an example) it's now one Dire Wolf (2,712bv) vs 2 Hunchbacks (1,037bv each) and a Commando (541bv) or maybe a Hunchback and an Awesome (1,605bv).

Pilot skill may not be able to be fully accounted for, but it's at least a better start.

[RedDragon]

I think we should stop going in circles (BV vs. tonnage) and start trying to come up with good ideas to circumvent that stalemate.

Let's tackle the problem from the logical side.
There are two ways of ensuring everything but assaults is worth playing:

• Forcing the players to take lights and meds alongside the assaults
  
• Making lights and meds attractive for players by rewarding them for using lighter mechs

I definitely think that we should stick to option #2. Forcing players is never a good idea. Maybe if there are no slots left in a game for assaults, they just will quit and search for other games where they can pilot one. It's way more rewarding to make them pick lighter mechs because they WANT to.

How can we achieve that?
One way would be to reward players for taking them. Rewarding them with money is the first way that comes to mind. Just give them more money, the lighter the mech they use is. Plain as that. If I get twice as much money for winning a match with a medium, I will think twice before dismissing everything but assaults.

A more elaborate way of doing it would be to connect the money made to the damage dealt in a game (plus bonus for winning, achieving goals etc.).
Really simplified example: An assault doing 10 damage to a mech will get 5 C-Bills. A heavy mech will get 10 C-Bills. A medium mech doing 10 damage will get 15 C-Bills, a light 20. So even if you die rather quick, you will still have as much money as the guy piloting the assault (and he will have to pay way more money to get his ride repaired after the match). That brings us to another way of doing it: Upping the maintenance cost for heavier mechs. You may fight in an assault, but even after winning the match you still don't have enough money to fully repair it. Assaults have their place on a battlefield, sometimes they just are needed t owin. But their use is costly when it comes to money and they are of great value so they shouldn't be used as cannon fodder. That should be reflected by the game, and not just by saying "But you have to use a light instead of that assault!". Using an assault should be rewarding for a player, but it should cost him something along with it.
They could even add winning-conditions like "The first team to lose ***$ worth of combat gear will lose the game." That means for example if one assault dies, you lose the match. For that money you could afford to lose two mediums.

There are many ways to ensure piloting lighter mechs is attractive enough for the players. You just have to be a bit creative about it. Just going by BV or tonnage won't solve that problem IMO.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 02 May 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

So yeah....how exactly will you ensure everyone will play the same tech, if thats what you want? The devil is in the details..
Are you implying there will be separate all level 1 tech and all level 2 tech matches, ect...?
What if you want to play with your friend that only has level 1 tech? Tech down in order to play with him? Or will he play in your tech 2 environment and get curb stomped?
What if you prefer tech 1 gameplay, over what tech 2?
What if you like a mix of both (or all 3 once tech 3 rolls around).
What if a new player wants to participate in competitive play. SOL until he gets tech 2?

Lets pretend they go with a "BV" system. With differing BV levels you can have mixes of techs. Depending on the BV total you can have essentially all tech 1 matches or tech 2 matches. You can play with your newbie friend, without having to gimp yourself. You can play competitively from day 1 without worrying about first grinding your tech up. Of course in high BV competitive matches you might be SOL as a new player, but you are not completely shut out from it either. And finally, something I've hammered on before, you ensure a larger portion of the game content isn't completely sidelined and mothballed even in the highest levels.

I thought we were all playing the same game, MWO?

Where would I go to play this Lower Level Tier match or Upper Level Tier match?

I apologize. I must have missed where these supposed different Tech levels come from...

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 02 May 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

I thought we were all playing the same game, MWO?

Where would I go to play this Lower Level Tier match or Upper Level Tier match?

I apologize. I must have missed where these supposed different Tech levels come from...

There will be different tech levels. Endo steel > standard. DHS > SHS. UAC/LBX > AC. The tech teir match questions were based off what you said "everyone plays using the same Tech Levels." Easy to say, so how do you do that..it made it sound like you were promoting tech tier matches or something....
So how do you prevent what cowbell described. I feel you are dancing around the question ....

Edited by =Outlaw=, 02 May 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[Sprouticus]

PGI has stated that they will look at everything for their matchmaking system. The important variable in my mind

1) Pilot win/Loss ratio
2) Desired Role (Commander,Attack/Defense,Scout)
3) Mech
4) If you are in a group, and the size and contingent of that group

Take the mech to assign a base BV
Modify the BV based upon some algorithm based upon win% (mayeb even complex like win% in that mech or win% in that mech for that role)
queue the person/group up for the roles/BV. Make sure the Bv between the tewo groups is close (say 2-5%), then push everyone into the lobby
Allow modules to be modifed as needed. 3-5 minutes for planning, get on comms, etc.
Launch.

[Aelos03]

Kudzu, on 02 May 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

So in effect, the better player is the one who can overcome his disadvantages and beat the one with the advantages... which is the entire basis of my statement.

only way to know who is better is to fight one on one on equal terms

[Kudzu]

Aelos03, on 02 May 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

only way to know who is better is to fight one on one on equal terms

Really? Teamwork skills aren't part of being a good player?

[Numatani2112]

OK, so I haven't read all the responses, but taking a tip from WOT, I think equalizing quantity of function is a likely outcome. For example, each side may have 3 scout mechs, 5 fire support mechs, "X" assault mechs, etc, similar to 2x arty, 4x light, 5x medium, 4x heavy tanks in WOT (or whatever falls out in that particular game), equally divided by tier, or perhaps BV bracket. I think this is as close to balance as you will ever hope to recieve.

I welcome your responses on the topic.

Edited by Numatani2112, 02 May 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

I'm on the fence about "rewarding half-assery".

If all you could afford is Tech level 1 gear when Tech level 2 gear is out, the game should not reward you for not having level 2 gear equipped. This is the equivalent of us telling someone "If you choose to use a 56k modem rather than our 10Mbps cable, we'll show our appreciation by rewarding you."

The very nature of tech is that old tech isn't as good as new. New tech is better, but also very expensive. Players should not be enticed to "take a lighter Mech" for more rewards because people are merely judging a Mech's worth on its raw killing capability. Light Mechs CAN kill, even if not as efficiently, but there are a myriad of things that they excel at, which is more worthy of reward.

Assisting in skills, marking enemies and doing things that Light mechs naturally are more capable of is a proper action that deems a reward.

If you guys are expecting a battlefield to be fair, you'll be in for a surprise. Not all fights are going to be 1v1 or equal weights/tech vs. each other. There are a massive amount of logistical statistics for each and every encounter. And if you ever feel you cannot succeed at the current task as things stand; RETREAT, REGROUP and RETHINK out a new plan of attack. Only the new pilots blindly commit to a suicide mission.

[Demonwaith]

Weight limits for the team total... if the the limit is 800k as sone else stated before.... team one takes a mix of mechs and drops with 12 people.. team two has 8 100k mechs.. Then its a 12 on 8 game.

personally, I think the ton limit should be 720k. Thats 12 people with 60k mechs, the avg.

If you must have a 12 on 12 game. No limits on tonage for the game itself. But if your over the 720k as a team. You get less c-bill/loyalty points. If your team is under you get more.

The same formula can be used for DV or even both. Just find the avg and put in a sliding scale of rewards.

[Victor Morson]

RedDragon, on 02 May 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

I think we should stop going in circles (BV vs. tonnage) and start trying to come up with good ideas to circumvent that stalemate.

Let's tackle the problem from the logical side.
There are two ways of ensuring everything but assaults is worth playing:

• Forcing the players to take lights and meds alongside the assaults
  
• Making lights and meds attractive for players by rewarding them for using lighter mechs

I definitely think that we should stick to option #2. Forcing players is never a good idea. Maybe if there are no slots left in a game for assaults, they just will quit and search for other games where they can pilot one. It's way more rewarding to make them pick lighter mechs because they WANT to.

#2 is far preferable but it's very, very hard to make happen within the confines of the BTU. People bring up speed and maneuverability with constant "Fine take your assault I'll be so fast in my medium.." kind of logic all the time, except it doesn't work that way (hence the Hunchback vs Atlas question I keep going back to). There's slow lights in BattleTech and even fairly fast Assaults. A huge number of mediums don't even break 64 kp/h by default. Their advantage is being cheaper; any other advantage they might have is a bonus which can be exploited to get the most out of them, but at the end of the day, they're still inferior.

So yeah, say one team takes 10 assaults and 2 scouts, and the other team 10 mediums and 2 scouts. The medium team takes a bunch of heavily armed Centurions with alright speed. The argument goes the assaults will be slow and easily flanked, etc.

Except the Assault team opted for XL Engine Awesomes, swapped to Lasers to reduce heat. They're now packing more firepower and armor than the Centurions and can match their speed. This is the primary reason that it just doesn't work like some folks think it does.

RedDragon, on 02 May 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

How can we achieve that?
One way would be to reward players for taking them. Rewarding them with money is the first way that comes to mind. Just give them more money, the lighter the mech they use is. Plain as that. If I get twice as much money for winning a match with a medium, I will think twice before dismissing everything but assaults.

This is a bad, bad idea - metagame balance is not the way to handle this. Simply put, this means an organized team will farm pubbies for cash then if they see they're facing an established group, ton up. It won't fix anything.

RedDragon, on 02 May 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

There are many ways to ensure piloting lighter mechs is attractive enough for the players. You just have to be a bit creative about it. Just going by BV or tonnage won't solve that problem IMO.

The problem is there's lots of good reasons to pilot light 'mechs. There's lots of good reasons to pilot fast moving heavies and there's probably the most reasons to pilot an assault. There's zero reason to pilot anything middle of the road or outside of those three categories.

[Victor Morson]

Aelos03, on 02 May 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

only way to know who is better is to fight one on one on equal terms

A few of the consistently highest scoring players I've ever been in-game with were bad in 1 on 1s. They specialized in evading until a target got distracted and then hammering them relentlessly. 1v1 takes skill, sure. But it's a skill, not everything to do with skills.

Notably outside of game modes that promote it, nearly every game is going to boil down to which team is more on the ball with their focus fire and positioning, far more than who has the better pilot/gunners, really.

[RedDragon]

Victor Morson, on 02 May 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

#2 is far preferable but it's very, very hard to make happen within the confines of the BTU. People bring up speed and maneuverability with constant "Fine take your assault I'll be so fast in my medium.." kind of logic all the time, except it doesn't work that way (hence the Hunchback vs Atlas question I keep going back to). There's slow lights in BattleTech and even fairly fast Assaults. A huge number of mediums don't even break 64 kp/h by default. Their advantage is being cheaper; any other advantage they might have is a bonus which can be exploited to get the most out of them, but at the end of the day, they're still inferior.

So yeah, say one team takes 10 assaults and 2 scouts, and the other team 10 mediums and 2 scouts. The medium team takes a bunch of heavily armed Centurions with alright speed. The argument goes the assaults will be slow and easily flanked, etc.

Except the Assault team opted for XL Engine Awesomes, swapped to Lasers to reduce heat. They're now packing more firepower and armor than the Centurions and can match their speed. This is the primary reason that it just doesn't work like some folks think it does.



This is a bad, bad idea - metagame balance is not the way to handle this. Simply put, this means an organized team will farm pubbies for cash then if they see they're facing an established group, ton up. It won't fix anything.



The problem is there's lots of good reasons to pilot light 'mechs. There's lots of good reasons to pilot fast moving heavies and there's probably the most reasons to pilot an assault. There's zero reason to pilot anything middle of the road or outside of those three categories.

You will see pilot farming no matter what. They still have to use lighter mechs in matches to do so, so that's what you want: Increased use of lights.After all there won't be any "farming grounds" like in MMORPGs. If they'll only bring the heavies in important matches, that's even realistic. You only field an assault if it's worth it.

You have to MAKE reasons to pilot any weight class. And I think money could be the right way to do so.

[Victor Morson]

RedDragon, on 02 May 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

You will see pilot farming no matter what. They still have to use lighter mechs in matches to do so, so that's what you want: Increased use of lights.After all there won't be any "farming grounds" like in MMORPGs. If they'll only bring the heavies in important matches, that's even realistic. You only field an assault if it's worth it.

You have to MAKE reasons to pilot any weight class. And I think money could be the right way to do so.

That's a really artificial way to encourage mediums and doesn't give them a role except increasing loot against poor teams.

As for farming grounds.. honestly, any match of a merc corp versus lone wolves will be farming grounds. One side will be communicating and focusing fire - not to mention maneuvering around - while the other side will almost positively break formation, charge in, lose at least 3-4 people before the slow units even catch up, etc. I'd be shocked if it ended up any differently.

[Aegis Kleais]

lol. You guys might as well just have the game randomize and forcibly throw players into 1 of their Mechs without letting them choose.

"Fair" is subjective. The game can never put a tangible value on a pilot; I've seen naturals with next to no pilot time, and I've seen players with 1000 hours under their belt not know that their Mech's torso can twist.

Leave "force balancing" to meta games if you want; but any non-meta game should be "Bring a Mech you have, play the Mech you chose.". As long as missions can be won without having to rely on brute kill force at all times, things are fine. Assault's aren't the cat's meow for everything. Even a well equipped Light can run in, sheer off damage and get away without being seen by an Assault over and over until the Assault is brought down to its knees.

It's why you never run solo if you can help, and you DIVERSIFY your lance. If a Scout is pestering your Assaults, send in the Medium and Light to take care of it. Like infantry and tanks, you never send in 1 without the other when you can help it.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 02 May 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

There will be different tech levels. Endo steel > standard. DHS > SHS. UAC/LBX > AC. The tech teir match questions were based off what you said "everyone plays using the same Tech Levels." Easy to say, so how do you do that..it made it sound like you were promoting tech tier matches or something....
So how do you prevent what cowbell described. I feel you are dancing around the question ....

That is a given. I was going on the assumption some one else made about Mechs fighting with differing Tech gear, when everyone will obviously have access to all the same stuff.

Besides, if BV is the great equalizer, then Tech levels would not be an issue as cost of Tech goes up with level right, so that T2 mech may have better Tech but under the BV ruleset (so many keep saying) will have to run with way less stuff than the other guy.

Or is that not how the BV systems actually works?

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 03 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

That is a given. I was going on the assumption some one else made about Mechs fighting with differing Tech gear, when everyone will obviously have access to all the same stuff.

Besides, if BV is the great equalizer, then Tech levels would not be an issue as cost of Tech goes up with level right, so that T2 mech may have better Tech but under the BV ruleset (so many keep saying) will have to run with way less stuff than the other guy.

Or is that not how the BV systems actually works?

You have it right. When people are talking about tech levels it's a reference to the old TT classification system where tech level one was classic 3025 era tech, tech level two was Star League and Clan tech (XL engines, DHS, ER lasers, etc), and tech level 3 was the experimental stuff.

With a BV system it actually pays to have a mix of mechs with both tech level one and two, as you can get more/bigger bodies with tech level one's cheaper BV. Some of the older designs are actually more effective than their upgraded counterparts too, like the Grasshopper or the Hunchback.

[MaddMaxx]

Just for giggles (and ended up rather surprised)

I took a Stock 50T Mech. add a 4/6 std. engine (Nissan 200 series), full armor (11t) and you get (approx.) 615 BV with 45 of 47 critical slots open.

Now add weapons and balance the Heat...

Now take that same 50t Mech and make that engine an XL, install FF armor, ES internals and DHS's (zero extra yet), same full armor (9.5t) and you now get (approx.) 540 BV with 7 of 47 critical slots open.

Now add weapons and balance the Heat...

So indeed, a Mix and Match scenario is truly required. T2 stuff takes up ALOT of space.

P.S. Would a 75BV difference be considered a lot? If not, when do the +/- of the #'s start to make a real difference?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 May 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

MaddMaxx, on 03 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Just for giggles (and ended up rather surprised)

I took a Stock 50T Mech. add a 4/6 std. engine (Nissan 200 series), full armor (11t) and you get (approx.) 615 BV with 45 of 47 critical slots open.

Now add weapons and balance the Heat...

Now take that same 50t Mech and make that engine an XL, install FF armor, ES internals and DHS's (zero extra yet), same full armor (9.5t) and you now get (approx.) 540 BV with 7 of 47 critical slots open.

Now add weapons and balance the Heat...

So indeed, a Mix and Match scenario is truly required. T2 stuff takes up ALOT of space.

P.S. Would a 75BV difference be considered a lot? If not, when do the +/- of the #'s start to make a real difference?

Usually, I find that lights and mediums do well enough with just an XL engine and standard internals. Once I get up to Heavies and Assaults, I find that they often benefit with my loadouts with both Endo internals and XL engines.