476 replies to this topic

[Hayashi]

BV, drop weight and class all talk about the innate power of a 'Mech, in decreasing order of precision. Basically, what you have.

Pilot skill deals with how you use what you have.

This thread deals with what is the most appropriate way to limit what players can bring so that their skill makes a greater difference.

By this, the assumption is made that people with greater skill (or luck) should be able to determine the outcome of the match.

If you try to take piloting skill into account when talking about balancing, what exactly are you trying to achieve? A case in which the outcome of every match tends towards 50% regardless of who is playing, against whom, using anything? That probably would not go very well with most players.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 20 March 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

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.

Depending on the restriction placed on the ability to modify a Chassis, the min and max BV #'s will vary little. A Mech's drop weight also includes all the items added to it, to the Maximum allowed.

Adding up ALL the components and giving them some arbitrary value does neither increase or decrease what a Pilot can accomplish with that Mech.

Without a FULL MechLab, BV values across similar weight class variants do not vary that much. I noted the Atlas for example purposes. (post #177)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 March 2012 - 01:47 PM.

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Depending on the restriction placed on the ability to modify a Chassis, the min and max BV #'s will vary little. A Mech's drop weight also includes all the items added to it, to the Maximum allowed.

You really need to read up on your components. Particularly ferro-fibrous armor, endo steel, double heatsinks, XL engines, and the tech levels for weapons. Weight is just one part of the bigger picture.

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Adding up ALL the components and giving them some arbitrary value does neither increase or decrease what a Pilot can accomplish with that Mech.

Why do so many people actually believe this? Sorry, but I am not even going to bother with this one anymore.

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Without a FULL MechLab, BV values across similar weight class variants do not vary that much. I noted the Atlas for example purposes.

Depends what you end up taking on the mech in the actual match.
An atlas with standard structure, standard engine and standard armor with succession wars weapons is going to be vastly different than an Atlas with XL engine, Double heatsinks and tech level 3 weapons.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 20 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

You really need to read up on your components. Particularly ferro-fibrous armor, endo steel, double heatsinks, XL engines, and the tech levels for weapons. Weight is just one part of the bigger picture.


Why do so many people actual believe this? Sorry, but I am not even going to bother with this one anymore.


Depends what you end up taking on the mech in the actual match.
An atlas with standard structure, standard engine and standard armor with tech level 1 weapons is going to be vastly different than an Atlas with XL engine, Double heatsinks and tech level 2 weapons.

But won't we all be playing the same Tech level(s) as they are introduced. What you are talking about is somehow having something available to you that another can't have. That is complete nonsense given the subject at hand. MWO

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

But won't we all be playing the same Tech level(s) as they are introduced. What you are talking about is somehow having something available to you that another can't have. That is complete nonsense given the subject at hand. MWO

Everything I posted starts becoming available during this time period. Your sentence was hard to read. Write clearer, since I don't know what you were trying to say.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 20 March 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Everything I posted starts becoming available during this time period. Your sentence was hard to read. Write clearer, since I don't know what you were trying to say.

I will try harder.

[StaIker]

Outlaw, there is something I don't understand about your position.

Let's say there is a BV system. People are just going to figure out what the best variants are and stick to them. How is that different from an unrestricted Mechlab where people figure out the best variants and stick to them?

[Soviet Alex]

The devs have already hinted that as we earn faction loyalty points, this may unlock upgraded tech. This implies that matches will contain some technological disparity.

[Outlaw2]

StaIker, on 20 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Outlaw, there is something I don't understand about your position.

Let's say there is a BV system. People are just going to figure out what the best variants are and stick to them. How is that different from an unrestricted Mechlab where people figure out the best variants and stick to them?

I don't see BV and the mechlab to be mutually exclusive. Im also neither advocating stock mechs nor am I advocating the direct use of the TRO BV system. Im just using the word "battle value" to name a system where you place a value on the mech's components or total value based on the all the mech components (not necessarily additive). Its similar to the TT BV system so Im calling it that.

Now of course there are going to be mech/variants that dominate, but the idea is BV is a much more robust tool to balance content....and allow more gameplay diversity. It acts as a deeper "tonnage system" and adds a powerful tool to the constant whack-a-mole stat nerf/buff. For instance low caliber ACs have proven difficult to balance with other weapons. Changing one stat always seems to encroach into the territory of another weapon. However if we simply costed low calibur AC weapons with a low BV, its inferiority is negated since taking some frees up BV for other things. Or lets say a mech or group of mechs taking a certain weapon has proven problematic. However by themselves, the weapon and the mechs are fine, so nerfing the weapon or mech will just cause more problems than it solves. With a BV system, you can increase the BV cost higher than normal when these two (mech(s) and weapon) are combined. This allows you to address the problem, without the ruining the weapon for the rest of the mechs or gimping the mechs' other variants.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[mockingfox]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

But that's the thing, they don't. The hope is that the game will not be 100% focused around KILLING other Mechs. If PGI has done their job well, there will be objectives in the game that light Mechs can excel at (getting from 1 point to another, or arriving at one point first to secure something, etc.) Assaults will be at a clear disadvantage, especially if the lights can just ignore the Assaults and leave them in their dust as they complete objectives.

On top of this, even for an Assault, it's not wise to take on 3-4+ Lights. They can combine arms and disorientate the pilot and even bring him down, especially out in the open.

Even more so, just the time it takes for Assaults to get to objectives, even ones where they have to defend or do things they excel at, a pack of lights can specifically target an Assault's leg, cripple him and then leave him as he becomes a near immobile tank that is 2 clicks from his objective, moving at 15KPH.

but you forget something, two AC20's to any part of a light mech means two things.
1.they are dead
2.if they are not dead they are knocked down, which means their dead.

how long do you think 4 lights can survive against a well equiped assult? not very long in my expirience, even with really good pilot they simply cant hit hard enough and come out with enought to survive the other 3 assults the other team has picked instead of the lights you picked on your team.

I would also like to say something about the BV system being thrown about here.
when TheRulesLawyer explained it he said that each player would get a reserve of 1000BV to spend and that excess would be put in a pool (those over the max would get less cash blah blah blah not important)
You have responded to this system as though you could not go over this limit at all when infact this would not be the case. instead if you went over the max you would simply not get as many rewards and if you stayed under you would get more rewards.
those points you didnt use would be distributed to players who went over the limit as long as you are not using them.

nothing here said that you couldnt use that 2000BV daishi you love, but your team probably wont be able to cover it so you will get way less end of game rewards then everyone else, and probably progressing slower as far as exp goes.

this also means that a team filled with medium mechs that have alot of extra BV points floating around vs a team filled with atlas's will get more reward at the end compared to those way over the "limit".

i hope this clears a little of the misunderstanding i saw rampant on the first page

[mockingfox]

StaIker, on 20 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Outlaw, there is something I don't understand about your position.

Let's say there is a BV system. People are just going to figure out what the best variants are and stick to them. How is that different from an unrestricted Mechlab where people figure out the best variants and stick to them?

it is better because then you wont see 12 assult mechs coming at you like a steel wall of death and actually some variation

[Victor Morson]

StaIker, on 20 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Outlaw, there is something I don't understand about your position.

Let's say there is a BV system. People are just going to figure out what the best variants are and stick to them. How is that different from an unrestricted Mechlab where people figure out the best variants and stick to them?

Given how it's worked in previous games, the most recent to implement it being MWLL, a few ways. If the BV fluxes per mission, that means you'll need to have different people take different 'mechs to fit the current drop limitation. Second, not everyone will be able to take the same thing. In order to fit, say, a 'mech with 6 ER Large and enough DHS to use them into the map, other people will need to take lighter designs - you won't find everyone using a perfectly balanced "12 of these is ideal" unit, and even if they did, it might not be a good fit for the specific map, game type, etc. On some maps that might be 4 scouts and 8 heavy fire support 'mechs, on others it might be 8 mediums backed by 4 assaults, etc: It all depends on situation and what's available. If everything is available, all of the time, this goes away.

A drop commander under the BV system needs to look at the map, available BV, and try to fit the most equipment into it. Again, this is harder to do in an open public game, which is partly why I'm fully understanding if they don't use Battle Value: My greater concern is that there is SOME limiting factor.

If there's really some advantage to medium 'mechs (the Hunchback vs Atlas question I keep asking) that somehow makes them more useful to run even with unlimited drops, I would absolutely love to hear what they've come up with. But unless they've done something wildly off-canon I can't picture any solution that will solve this short of drop limits.

Edited by Victor Morson, 20 March 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[StaIker]

Quote

Now of course there are going to be mech/variants that dominate, but the idea is BV is a much more robust tool to balance content....and allow more gameplay diversity.

That sounds like an assertion made on faith rather than hard evidence. Any system of BV just changes what "best" means, in this case to "best value for money" rather than "best is most powerful". People are going to figure out the best value for money configs under a BV system and concentrate on them. The only way to prevent that is to downgrade the stats of any popular weapons until something different becomes the best value for money. But there will always be a best value for money. I just don't see the merit of a restriction that changes the way weapons are valued but doesn't actually alter the mechanics of people designing the best mech they can. At the end of the day, there will still be mechs which are notably superior even for the same BV.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 20 March 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I don't see BV and the mechlab to be mutually exclusive. Im also neither advocating stock mechs nor am I advocating the direct use of the TRO BV system. Im just using the word "battle value" to name a system where you place a value on the mech's components or total value based on the all the mech components (not necessarily additive). Its similar to the TT BV system so Im calling it that.

Now of course there are going to be mech/variants that dominate, but the idea is BV is a much more robust tool to balance content....and allow more gameplay diversity. It acts as a deeper "tonnage system" and adds a powerful tool to the constant whack-a-mole stat nerf/buff. For instance low caliber ACs have proven difficult to balance with other weapons. Changing one stat always seems to encroach into the territory of another weapon. However if we simply costed low calibur AC weapons with a low BV, its inferiority is negated since taking some frees up BV for other things. Or lets say a mech or group of mechs taking a certain weapon has proven problematic. However by themselves, the weapon and the mechs are fine, so nerfing the weapon or mech will just cause more problems than it solves. With a BV system, you can increase the BV cost higher than normal when these two (mech(s) and weapon) are combined. This allows you to address the problem, without the ruining the weapon for the rest of the mechs or gimping the mechs' other variants.

Now your scaring me. So if we do not change the Weight, Critical Space, Heat, Damage output of any component, but just change it's BV, an arbitrary number to begin with, we somehow solve the whole Mech vs Mech issue when we field them in groups know as Lances or Companies?

I am just not getting it =Outlaw= sorry.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 March 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[Victor Morson]

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Now your scaring me. So if we do not change the Weight, Critical Space, Heat, Damage output of any component, but just change it's BV, an arbitrary number to begin with, we somehow solve the whole Mech vs Mech issue when we field them in groups know as Lances or Companies?

I am just not getting it =Outlaw= sorry.

EDIT: I see what you're saying to Outlaw, and again, the BV does in fact solve this. Simply put if, say, an AC/5 is proving to be a bad gun and it's BV is lowered (other stats not touched), it means a 'mech that uses heavy AC5s is now drastically cheaper. This could allow a drop commander to fit in a heavy that's boasting AC5s as a damage sponge for the price of a mid-tier Medium 'mech, allowing the team to take heavier equipment for the price of inferior weaponry. The same goes for an heavy that might, say, pack an AC/20 and Medium Lasers instead of an Ultra AC/20 and ER Medium Lasers: You might be able to fit one in your configuration but not the other, despite the other being clearly superior in every way.

How a BV system would work does, in fact, solve this. Say a drop has (for ease of explaining this) a 12,000 BV limit.

The Drop Commander is facing a drop on a hilly arctic map with 12 people to fit into 'mechs. He/she could then say that they need two people for under 500 BV scouts, 4 people in 800 or under BV mediums missile boats, 4 in 1,200 BV energy heavies and 2 in 1,500 BV artillery assaults for example.

If there's no limiting factor you can just say "Give me a scout and 11 assaults with missiles." There's no planning past what types of assaults to take as there's no advantage to taking the mediums.

This goes beyond MechWarrior of course. Go play a game of Megamek with the rules of taking 12 'mechs - have one player take all tier 2 assaults and heavies and the other player take a "balanced company." The results will be no different than what would happen in MechWarrior, MechCommander or even hilariously MechAssault.

StaIker, on 20 March 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

That sounds like an assertion made on faith rather than hard evidence. Any system of BV just changes what "best" means, in this case to "best value for money" rather than "best is most powerful". People are going to figure out the best value for money configs under a BV system and concentrate on them. The only way to prevent that is to downgrade the stats of any popular weapons until something different becomes the best value for money. But there will always be a best value for money. I just don't see the merit of a restriction that changes the way weapons are valued but doesn't actually alter the mechanics of people designing the best mech they can. At the end of the day, there will still be mechs which are notably superior even for the same BV.

As well they should. There is no crime or down side to people trying to customize their 'mechs to fix the absolute maximum value of parts on a 'mech within a certain range, at all: This is the point of a mechlab in the first place, really. It doesn't mean it isn't enhanced by a BV system; take Living Legends for example. If you boat multiples of weapons, it starts increasing the price of the 'mech - which allows, without nerfing, boat style 'mechs (I happen to be totally cool with them) while also pricing them at a higher value.

The result is that yes, a BV system would leave room for a pilot who wants to drive an assault with sub-par tier 1 weapons as a tanking role or pilots who have tricked out, optimized tier 2 medium 'mechs. It gives those options, as now you have to decide what the best choice for the value is, rather than just answering that with "the most expensive thing available, obviously."

Again, I'm not even 100% sold on a BV system for drops, simply due to the public/casual gamer market having a hard time agreeing on values and a lack of NBT style commanders to lead these players into fights, unless the interface can be made simplified. What I do believe is absolutely vital to the longeivity of the game is some kind of limiting factor, however it is done, to prevent players from simply dropping with company after company of "A bunch of assaults and that one scout guy."

Edited by Victor Morson, 20 March 2012 - 04:43 PM.

[StaIker]

I think we may be getting too worked up over nothing here. We really need to see the hardpoint allocation for Mechs. If the hardpoints are such that they already force people to mount a variety of weapons to fill out the payload then a BV system is pointless. The need to vary weapons will already have been accounted for and we will see a lot of different configs by default.

[Outlaw2]

StaIker, on 20 March 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

That sounds like an assertion made on faith rather than hard evidence. Any system of BV just changes what "best" means, in this case to "best value for money" rather than "best is most powerful". People are going to figure out the best value for money configs under a BV system and concentrate on them. The only way to prevent that is to downgrade the stats of any popular weapons until something different becomes the best value for money. But there will always be a best value for money. I just don't see the merit of a restriction that changes the way weapons are valued but doesn't actually alter the mechanics of people designing the best mech they can. At the end of the day, there will still be mechs which are notably superior even for the same BV.

Well I was hoping the rest of the post would have shown why I made that assertion. There is no MW game with a BV system that I point at and say "it worked there". However MWLL does have a c-bill system which acts similar. There are some mechs I would never consider taking if it wasn't for them being so cheap. It allows them to have otherwise sub-par mechs actually worth taking in a match. If you want to look at it another way, BV is just another stat for weapons/mechs/components but one that could allow more flexibility and precision. I don't deny players will always try to find the best bang for the buck. Honestly, I don't think BV will eradicate this, but I do think it can help to increase the number of content people view as viable.

Quote

Now your scaring me. So if we do not change the Weight, Critical Space, Heat, Damage output of any component, but just change it's BV, an arbitrary number to begin with, we somehow solve the whole Mech vs Mech issue when we field them in groups know as Lances or Companies?.

I never said that. You could still change other stats if needed.

Quote

I think we may be getting too worked up over nothing here. We really need to see the hardpoint allocation for Mechs. If the hardpoints are such that they already force people to mount a variety of weapons to fill out the payload then a BV system is pointless. The need to vary weapons will already have been accounted for and we will see a lot of different configs by default.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a witchhunt against boating.
Im not pushing BV to force variety within a single mech's loadout (aka not boating). Remember this goes beyond just the weapons, but things like engine type, single or double heatsinks, internal structure type, armor type....everything that makes a mech better or worse. I want to see more variety in whats considered viable and what people take to a match....especially competitive matches.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[Victor Morson]

=Outlaw=, on 20 March 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, this is not a witchhunt against boating.
Im not pushing BV to force variety within a single mech's loadout (aka not boating). Remember this goes beyond just the weapons, but things like engine, double heatsinks, internal structure....everything that makes a mech better or worse. Im really pushing for variety for the entire game..as lofty as that sounds. I want to see more variety in whats considered viable and what people take to a match.

I feel the same way; I don't mind the small price multiplier for taking multiples of a single gun like MWLL has, because it doesn't actually nerf the boats while still making some kinds of designs (all ER PPC for example) less common. I'm very much a pro-boating player, however so we're on the same page with intent far and away.

You're dead on about MWLL. There's some 'mechs that are terrible compared to others in the weight class or even chassis, but are still completely worth piloting because their C-Bill value (acting as a BV stand in) is far lower. In fact, some of the best designed on a per-ton basis 'mechs in that game are not often worth driving simply because they can be described as "overpriced."

[Belisarius1]

There are really two different problems here, but we're kind of treating them as the same thing.

The first is: why take a hunchback over an atlas?
The second is: why take a charger over an atlas?

Tonnage deals with the first but not the second. BV deals with both, but has associated problems that you may or may not consider worth it. A 3+3+3+3 system deals with neither and is a terrible idea. But we're ignoring something, and that's game modes.

Personally, I'm happy to never use the charger in an NR game. I don't need him, or want him. NR should be about bringing the best for the job, because you only get one of it. I still want a reason to take the hunchback, though, and so I think NR should use a tonnage limit. Tonnage still prevents 12x atlas, but it's also familiar and simple to pilots, and doesn't require the same level of (let's face it) crazy pre-match arithmetic.

But a tactically rich, intersting respawn mode, which I think we have a very good chance of seeing... gives us an opportunity. I would love for respawn to be the charger's domain. I think a BV-based purchase-on-the-fly system is perfect here, because it's much easier to allocate a budget when you don't have 12 people buying simultaneously.

Respawn also buffers against the other evil of BV; that often, the best 'Mechs get priced out to the point that nobody uses them. Even overpriced 'Mechs have a chance of seeing use when someone has to spawn in the exact situation its niche is needed. By the way, Victor, managing to make the best 'Mechs so prohibitively overpriced that they don't even get that much is not something to praise MWLL on.

Edited by Belisarius†, 20 March 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[Outlaw2]

Wel Belisarius, I know you keep bringing it up, but I could care less about respawn. Just FYI ( and I honestly doubt they will introduce a full respawn mode anytime soon....doesn't seem to fit with their pay and business model).

Quote

Personally, I'm happy to never use the charger in an NR game. I don't need him, or want him. NR should be about bringing the best for the job, because you only get one of it. I still want a reason to take the hunchback, though, and so I think NR should use a tonnage limit. Tonnage still prevents 12x atlas, but it's also familiar and simple to pilots, and doesn't require the same level of (let's face it) crazy pre-match arithmetic.

See I don't get that. Why do you care about making the Hunchback viable, but not the charger? I know the charger is a notoriously crappy assault, but just replace it with some other sub-par assault. Why care about the Hunchback's viability but not the assault's? If priced accordingly, that sub-par assault would be viable (up to a point of course). Similar to how a tonnage system would make the Hunchback viable next to the Atlas. If we just focused on taking the best for the job, with zero restrictions, that will be one small list of mechs.

For Pugs, the matchmaker would take care of the arithmetic.

For competitive matches it would be bit harder, in fact this seemingly minor point might be the biggest impediment to its implementation in the end. The game would need an in-game calculator or drop dec program to help teams figure it out. Eventually Im sure teams will know what costs what and create them quickly. Though it will be something that will take some time to get used to. I know in NBT, it was not to uncommon for teams to barely figure out their drop dec in time..and just dealing with tonnage. However, teams also got lazy knowing their opponents would give them time extension if they went over (though occasionally rules lawyers would step in). Not to mention drop dec chicken shenanigans as teams tried to first see what the opponent will take. However in this game, if you drop late, I don't think the game is going to be as forgiving and accommodating. Teams will quickly learn to make the drop dec well ahead of time. But I'll concede that I see no easy way around it.

Quote

Respawn also buffers against the other evil of BV; that often, the best 'Mechs get priced out to the point that nobody uses them.

Thats really the same problem any underused mech/weapon suffers in any system. They are over priced for what they do.. one way or an other. A charger in a tonnage based system is overpriced, since its price is its tonnage...and its clearly not worth 80 tons compared to other 80 tonners. Its a similar situation with any under powered weapon, since they that take up that tonnage...you want bang for your tonnage.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 March 2012 - 09:04 PM.