476 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

docmorningstar, on 27 March 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:

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.

Well OK then. You always get an Atlas, and Mike always gets a friggin Medium? What are you on about. Show me two Mechs, the same weight, utilizing the same Tech, same Engine rating and you have to account for Heat 15/15 and then provide the WILD BV rating difference they would obviously have... please.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 March 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[StaIker]

You make fair points Z, I guess that under an idealised scenario where only the tactically necessary equipment was included that we'd still need various weight limits for servers otherwise it's as you say, it would be nothing but Assaults and a few choice heavies. But at least in that case we won't need to resort to a BV system or other restrictions on capability, as everything will have a purpose already.

I prefer that scenario to one were we have a bunch of garbage Mechs and weapons included which then require a handicapping system to make them useful. It's not like BT is short of choices so that including garbage is necessary for adequate content. At a guess I'd say there is probably a need for about 30-40 Mechs to fill all roles at all weight classes and somehwere between 20-30 weapons needed to support all the valid tactical options. That still a heck of a lot of flexability right there. MW4 made do with less and even then it took the best of us a long time to work out the full potential of everything.

Outlaw I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I've always seen the challenge as being on the field, restrictions on loadout like puretech or stock were always offensive to my sense of achievement. I like being able to eek out an extra bit of performance through some novel change to a Mech, it doesn't seem fair to have that taken away by an upper limit on allowed performance. But each to their own. Should BV end up being the chosen system I'll work within it anyway. I just won't like it.

[Dlardrageth]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 27 March 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

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.

Well, if they totally cannot perform aedequately without their "monsterboat" or whatever, let them have it. As long as we do also get a game mode to keep away from all this. Show some mercy to their complete lack of capability to adapt to tactical challenges (aka failing at piloting other Mechs, guess that has to be the hidden motivator there) and give them a little sandbox to play in as well. I wouldn't worry, as long as we're not forced to play along and can keep our distance...

Quote

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.

Then they won't force people to play at all, I reckon. I mean, seriously, Nick, imagine just as the match starts you realize the lineup looks like the enemy team has way higher tonnage, double the BV and perhaps even Clan Omni MEchs paired 1:1 against your stock IS ones. And further imagine that happening frequently. You know what will result? People quit. At first perhaps only the match (go AfK or whatever). Soon the game. Apart from hardcore maso-chist players, noone will like to face"no win" scenarios repeatedly. Especially not in random matches.

If you limit this mechanic to only one game mode, that could work. Will probably just get that one game mode shunned.

zorak ramone, on 27 March 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

[...]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.

/signed.

People can have their game with 4 standard chassis and customize at heart's desire everything, unlimited and what not, for all I care. Elsewhere. Because that effectively has nothing to do with BT/MW any more. If you really want something along the lines of classical roles akin to tank/DPS/healer/CC, you might want to look elsewhere. That was never a part of BT/MW and hopefully will never be. Much of the unique flavour of BT is gained by having so many different Mech versions available with individual strengths/weaknesses. Unlimited customization and ultimately reduction to only a couple of "useful" chassis completely changes that. And thus, leads indeed, to "a very boring game". I'd probably rather play MegaMek instead, despite some graphical disparities.

[StaIker]

Dlardrageth, there is no need to state that those who disagree with you on this subject do so based on a lack of skill. Zoraks unit and my own unit specialised in combined arms and role based combat in MW4 leagues, whatever disagreements we might have on this issue are not based on thinking the other lacks talent.

Edited by StaIker, 27 March 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

StaIker, on 27 March 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

Dlardrageth, there is no need to state that those who disagree with you on this subject do so based on a lack of skill. Zoraks unit and my own unit specialised in combined arms and role based combat in MW4 leagues, whatever disagreements we might have on this issue are not based on thinking the other lacks talent.

Um, what? When did I address you with that?

I phrased my comment very carefully, by using "guess" and "hidden motivator". Because for the life of me I can't see any fun in ROFLstomping, say, e.g. a stock CLNT-1-2R Clint with a fully kitted out (LosTech and ClanTech eventually included) BNC-5S Banshee. And that is what I was exactly responding to, the quote from Nik. Because it is a bit radical to claim you can't/won't play MWO unless you can always use your cheesed out uber-Mech, don't you think? Without any hidden motiovator there, this won't make any sense IMO.

No idea why you think I generally threw out a blanket statement about lack of skill concerning all people disagreeing with me. Look at your own posts, did you radically state you want your "Gausszilla" or won't play at all? No? Then why do you think my reply to Nik's point refers to you? Think you really misread my post, sorry.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 27 March 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Alessan]

My concern with limits of any kind is this:

If you are not coordinating with the other people on your team (Say, not a cooperative group of friends, just random strangers), what is to stop them from taking all the high tonnage / high value mechs, and leaving you with nothing? If I'm playing a Scout, it needs to be because I want to play a Scout, NOT because that was all I was able to take.

Value limits are just as bad, and possibly worse. If everyone else is taking high value high tonnage mechs, am I sometimes going to be stuck taking a stripped down scout with nothing but a machine gun and a prayer?

There will be major problems if I can be limited in what I'm allowed to use, just because someone else wants to use their biggest and best. At the same time, there will inevitably be times I want to use that Atlas, but I don't want to be the **** who forced someone else into a smaller mech than they have any skill in.

The answer is to balance role warfare such that people will voluntarily take something smaller than an Atlas. Don't FORCE me to take a medium mech, reward it.

[MaddMaxx]

Alessan, on 27 March 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

My concern with limits of any kind is this:

If you are not coordinating with the other people on your team (Say, not a cooperative group of friends, just random strangers), what is to stop them from taking all the high tonnage / high value mechs, and leaving you with nothing? If I'm playing a Scout, it needs to be because I want to play a Scout, NOT because that was all I was able to take.

Value limits are just as bad, and possibly worse. If everyone else is taking high value high tonnage mechs, am I sometimes going to be stuck taking a stripped down scout with nothing but a machine gun and a prayer?

There will be major problems if I can be limited in what I'm allowed to use, just because someone else wants to use their biggest and best. At the same time, there will inevitably be times I want to use that Atlas, but I don't want to be the **** who forced someone else into a smaller mech than they have any skill in.

The answer is to balance role warfare such that people will voluntarily take something smaller than an Atlas. Don't FORCE me to take a medium mech, reward it.

The discussion seems to revolve around PUG game play. The DEV have stated that you can take your choice. When it comes to what many are calling Ranked play, or Persistence game mode then there should be some form of Balance present between opposing Teams.

Whether they use BV 3.0 (which does not even exist) weight/tonnage or some variant is unknown. Let us just say we are still in the discussion phase and some assume things more vigorously than others.

Needless to say, neither side actually knows the end game (launch) result. As such, all thoughts, ideas and or disagreements are open and debatable.

Sadly some wish there side to win in the Forums as much as they would if the game was live. We hold no malice, as we have a Ignore function. Feel free to exercise it as necessary.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 March 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 27 March 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

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.

BV is there is to even the playing field a bit. After that, mech composition, gunnery skills, teamwork and tactics take over. Im assuming each team will have an equal BV total to work with.

[Mason Grimm]

I am sensing the toxicity levels are rising. My spidey sense was tingling and thus I arise from the depths of wherever the hell the devs keep me when I'm not switched on.

Let us all get back on topic and place nice shall we?

The Law According to Grimm

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 27 March 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

BV is there is to even the playing field a bit. After that, mech composition, gunnery skills, teamwork and tactics take over. Im assuming each team will have an equal BV total to work with.

Do me a favor sir. See Post #263 and provide an answer. I am perplexed when a question is asked and not answered based on the fact so much info is shoved at us without retort. Is your argument so weak,one lacks a response in case it may result in a loss?

We are all Warriors here right?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 March 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 27 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Do me a favor sir. See Post #263 and provide an answer. I am perplexed when a question is asked and not answered based on the fact so much info is shoved at us without retort. Is your argument so weak,one lacks a response in case it may result in a loss?

We are all Warriors here right?

You really need to provide a clearer question. I'm the one not sure what you are going on about.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 27 March 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Show me two Mechs, the same weight, utilizing the same Tech, same Engine rating and you have to account for Heat 15/15 and then provide the WILD BV rating difference they would obviously have... please.

How much clearer can one ask for?

[Belisarius1]

MaddMaxx, on 27 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Show me two Mechs, the same weight, utilizing the same Tech, same Engine rating and you have to account for Heat 15/15 and then provide the WILD BV rating difference they would obviously have... please.

How much clearer can one ask for?

....what? That's certainly not clear.

Are you asking for a maximum difference in BV for two mechs of the same class? There's no answer to that when we don't know what the game's balance is like yet.

I don't even like BV and you're making me want to stand up for it.

Edited by Belisarius†, 27 March 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[Hayden]

Halfinax, on 01 March 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

My knee **** reaction has been BV since this topic first started appearing in November, but I think we need to see how, beyond what we've already been told, PGI balances the game. I'm sure they are aware of the possible issues, but right now I say wait and see.

This.

[Dlardrageth]

Okay, this starts feeling like it's going around in circles right now. Let's see if I can figure out what this is about still.

MaddMaxx responded to a post by basically stating it is ridiculous to assume balancing on a basis of a medium vs. an assault chassis in general. And asked for someone to disprove that by presenting 2 Mechs from the exact same weight class etc. with as massive a BV discrepancy between them (as the medium and assault). The post that initiated that request actually referred to a "line of thinking" that claims:

Quote

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

And refutes that one. (Or tries to, whatever.)

Thus the matter at the core of this seems to be if and how far the balancing needs to be done beyond "mere equipment". Which inherently hasn't really much to do with a preference for a tonnage- or BV-based system or a mix of both. It comes more down to the old point of one faction claiming there should be absolutely none, nada, zilch balancing taking place anywhere that goes even a hair's width beyond balancing out the mounted hardware (Not sure if that includes the new "modules" though, or not.) while the other side wants at least a little bit of rebalancing for the PUGs in unranked, "random" battles, that don't affect the strategic/meta-level.

Belisarius†, on 27 March 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

I don't even like BV and you're making me want to stand up for it.

I don't think the mere existence of a BV system is really a point of content here.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 28 March 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Mason Grimm, on 27 March 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

I am sensing the toxicity levels are rising. My spidey sense was tingling and thus I arise from the depths of wherever the hell the devs keep me when I'm not switched on.

Let us all get back on topic and place nice shall we?

The Law According to Grimm

Please heed Grimm's advice, folks. I think this is one of the most important issues facing MWO right now, and is literally a make it or break issue in the long term, so I think the discussion and showing our opinions on this one is important. I'd hate to have this thread shut down because of an argument.

MaddMaxx, on 27 March 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Well OK then. You always get an Atlas, and Mike always gets a friggin Medium? What are you on about. Show me two Mechs, the same weight, utilizing the same Tech, same Engine rating and you have to account for Heat 15/15 and then provide the WILD BV rating difference they would obviously have... please.

BV2.0 rules
Hunchback HBK-4G : BV 1041
Atlas AS7-D : BV 1897

T2
Hunchback HB5-SG : BV 1577
Atlas AS7-K3 : BV 2346


Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying to use the Table Top battle values. The only actual MechWarrior game to use a system like this was Living Legends, based on c-bills; ultimately in a team game, however, this filled the same role as BV. In MWO C-Bills will be used to own the equipment, not field it (at least, it sounds like it!) so people refer to it as BV.

They'd need to tweak it for this game if they use this system. They could, however, use the c-bill cost of the 'mech (what it took to purchase it) as the Battle Value system no doubt, to bridge the system of Living Legends and the TT BV concept.

But I'm just showing that as an example in the board game that an Atlas is 80% more expensive, roughly, than a Hunchback to give some idea of the huge BV gap and the T2 versions to show the even further disconnect in the fielding of these things - the HB5-SG costs nearly 50% more than a standard Hunchback, as much as an entire light 'mech.

EDIT: I misread. I'm going to provide another example based on the same weight class and tech base, abit an extreme one; again I'm using TT BVs, when really and honestly, it'd probably be better and more relevant to show examples from Living Legend's system, as it's balanced more for a game of this sort.

Charger CGR-1L: 80 Ton Assault, BV 980
Awesome AWS-8Q: 80 Ton Assault, BV 1605

Difference: 625. This is enough BV to field any kind of Commando that exists. It is also more than enough to upgrade another team mate's light 'mech into a medium.

Again I'm only posting TT values to explain the basic concept and reasoning of this; I in no way am endorsing that MWO use any hard CBT BV values. Many quirks that will arise in a mech sim game like some chassis being more durable than others just due to the size of their various parts and frame need to figure into this, as does things like weapon balance; if you've seen my thread on low-caliber ACs you know I highly endorse greatly reducing their BV to give them a purpose.

Just a disclaimer.

Edited by Victor Morson, 28 March 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[movingtarget]

what if the team numbers where balanced as well by battle value? say one tem has 6 assault mechs and the other team has 18 urban mechs

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@Diardrageth - the comment was based on something Garth said in another thread - which I can't find at the moment. In which he basically said that they "prefer to use the carrot" and that Role Warfare was intended to persuade people into diversity and that "they didn't want to force people into not using any mech they wanted to". Unfortunately it was a while ago know. I be;ieve i said at the time that in that case it would be 10 assaults/heavies and a pair of lights. It might have been in one of the threads about the role of mrdiums.
I'm afraid my view on human nature is not so optimistic as to believe that Role Warfare will overule tonnage and firepower unless the scenarios are set up to do so. As usual we don't have sufficient information.

[zorak ramone]

StaIker, on 27 March 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

You make fair points Z, I guess that under an idealised scenario where only the tactically necessary equipment was included that we'd still need various weight limits for servers otherwise it's as you say, it would be nothing but Assaults and a few choice heavies. But at least in that case we won't need to resort to a BV system or other restrictions on capability, as everything will have a purpose already.

I prefer that scenario to one were we have a bunch of garbage Mechs and weapons included which then require a handicapping system to make them useful. It's not like BT is short of choices so that including garbage is necessary for adequate content. At a guess I'd say there is probably a need for about 30-40 Mechs to fill all roles at all weight classes and somehwere between 20-30 weapons needed to support all the valid tactical options. That still a heck of a lot of flexability right there. MW4 made do with less and even then it took the best of us a long time to work out the full potential of everything.

Outlaw I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I've always seen the challenge as being on the field, restrictions on loadout like puretech or stock were always offensive to my sense of achievement. I like being able to eek out an extra bit of performance through some novel change to a Mech, it doesn't seem fair to have that taken away by an upper limit on allowed performance. But each to their own. Should BV end up being the chosen system I'll work within it anyway. I just won't like it.

I think you could, taking customization into account and allowing for both general mechs and house-specific mechs, cover all of the roles at all weight classes with about 30 mechs. I've done this thought experiment before with the 3025 mechs. I also think that you could select mechs that on their own, or with a few tweaks would not be garbage. This is assuming that the weapons balance is at least reminding of CBT (not saying CBT is perfect), and assumes that mediums have some sort of advantage of economy.

As for the BV issue, especially the whole "tweaks" thing, this is why I think that cost of components is better than BV. Any BV formula will have loopholes that will allow you to cheat the system. For example in the original BV formulation for CBT, if you took a warhammer, stripped out the SRMs, lasers and Mguns, add 3 HS (for perfect heat efficiency with the PPCs), and then add then added as many flamers as you could, you would break the BV system: the warhammer overall would have terrible heat efficiency due to the flamers, which would kill its BV ... however, it would still be a mech with 10 tons of armor with 2 PPCs that it can fire forever.

Balancing mechs by straight cost of componenets is better because it allows people to gain advantage by superior configurations. The lack of formulas means that loopholes won't exist, and post-hoc balancing can be achieved simply by adjusting the prices of weapons and equipment. You won't be penalized for making a good configuration.

[MaddMaxx]

Belisarius†, on 27 March 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

....what? That's certainly not clear.

Are you asking for a maximum difference in BV for two mechs of the same class? There's no answer to that when we don't know what the game's balance is like yet.

I don't even like BV and you're making me want to stand up for it.

Not at all. A few are beating us with BV as the be all and end all for Team based Drop Balance vs Tonnage. My inquiry was show two Mechs, assuming dropping on opposite Teams, given the criteria noted, where the BIG difference in BV might be found.

The Dev are trying to stay close to Canon where possible. If so, any Balance will be had in the ability to Modify (or not) the weapons system on any chassis based on their weight class (providing some elements are fairly static).