476 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 08 May 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Sorry, again, but if you save 50% of your engine weight in the swap, could you not increase your speed and become much harder to hit?

Yes, and the larget engine would have a larger battle value. I.e. by battle value:

300 std > 300 XL

300 std < 375 XL


The point is that when switching from standard to XL, the increase in BV doesn't come directly from the upgrade from std to XL, it comes from what you add with all that free tonnage, be it a larger engine or more weapons. However, in the hypothetical scenario where you go from std to XL, and then do nothing (leaving you with alot of free, unfilled tonnage), your BV goes down because the XL engine itself just makes you easier to kill.

[Talcon]

All I will say on the topic is that some kind of restriction needs to be in place or it won't be fun. You can have it where the tonnage/c-bill assignment is random when you are about to drop into a mission. When remaining players join they will get a random alotment from that pool minus what has already been taken. As long as the total tonnage/c-bill is balanced in the match players should be adept at piloting different chassis types and sizes.

[Kudzu]

Talcon, on 09 May 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

All I will say on the topic is that some kind of restriction needs to be in place or it won't be fun. You can have it where the tonnage/c-bill assignment is random when you are about to drop into a mission. When remaining players join they will get a random alotment from that pool minus what has already been taken. As long as the total tonnage/c-bill is balanced in the match players should be adept at piloting different chassis types and sizes.

It would be better to count up in pub/fun matches and down in organized play.

In pub matches you load up whatever you and your friends want and the MM finds something similar to group you against. In organized play you should have a set hard limit and work out how your group wants to reach that number. Best of both worlds.

[MaddMaxx]

zorak ramone, on 09 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Yes, and the larget engine would have a larger battle value. I.e. by battle value:

300 std > 300 XL

300 std < 375 XL


The point is that when switching from standard to XL, the increase in BV doesn't come directly from the upgrade from std to XL, it comes from what you add with all that free tonnage, be it a larger engine or more weapons. However, in the hypothetical scenario where you go from std to XL, and then do nothing (leaving you with alot of free, unfilled tonnage), your BV goes down because the XL engine itself just makes you easier to kill.

Thanks Zorak. I appreciate the premise. I guess I just assumed that with all things, or so it seems, a better items begets a higher BV. Apparently there are some subtle deviations to that rule, and the XL engine (not really a better engine after all) falls into that category.

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 10 May 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Thanks Zorak. I appreciate the premise. I guess I just assumed that with all things, or so it seems, a better items begets a higher BV. Apparently there are some subtle deviations to that rule, and the XL engine (not really a better engine after all) falls into that category.

There are quite a few things in BT that have more subtle balancing measures to them they you'd think at first glance. IS double heat sinks for example, at first glance you see twice the heat dissipation for the same weight-- obviously that's a no brainer! Then you go to mount them and realize that since they take up three crit slots the only place you can fit them is in the torso or arms.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think BV comes into best use for comparing weapons. Take the AC/20 and Gauss Rifle for example. They both take up the same space, weigh almost exactly the same, they cost the exact same, and have comparable damage outputs (20 vs 15)... but the Gauss has more than 2x the range, Gauss ammo can't explode from a ctirical hit, and IF the Gauss Rifle itself does explode from a critical hit it only deals 15 damage which, for an "ammo explosion," is just paultry.

The Gauss Rifle is far superior to the AC/20, and that's why the Guass Rufle has a Battle Value twice that of an AC/20. Why would you ever use an AC/20 if you have the option to use a Guass? Because of BV restrictions. That's the only reason I can think of.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 10 May 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Mike Silva]

BV

[Woodstock]

The only option is BV with mixed team numbers.

So we would have matches with 9 v 12 etc but the same BV

[Sprouticus]

http://mwomercs.com/...devs-2-answers/

FYI for those following this thread

[MaddMaxx]

Sprouticus, on 14 May 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...devs-2-answers/

FYI for those following this thread

So they are still undecided... Cool.

TONNAGE FTW! LOL

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 14 May 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

So they are still undecided... Cool.

TONNAGE FTW! LOL

So since you've had BV explained to you about 10 different ways, care to expand on any good points tonnage has?

[Woodstock]

My hope is this:

BV controlled - But you don't have to have the same number of players per team.

So team A ) could go with 3 Atlas' and a Raven. (4400BV + 600BV - aprox 5000 bv)

But Team B ) could opt for 6 Centurions and a commando (4600BV + 400BV - Aprox 5000BC)

Both teams are equal in BV, but Team A has 4 members and team B has 7.

Balanced games ...varied games.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Alternatively they could base it on C-bills as cost tends to mirror BV, with the exception of XL engines. If they are going to use BV then it would help to have the running/final totals shown in Mechlab.

[ManDaisy]

I say they just redo the BV calc.

Weapons tons/ 100 tons
Speed/ fastest speed possibile
Armor / Max armor for 100 tons

That should equal BV.

Then they should factor in skills BV based on pilot wins/loss record.

Edited by ManDaisy, 15 May 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[Kudzu]

ManDaisy, on 15 May 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

I say they just redo the BV calc.

Weapons tons/ 100 tons
Speed/ fastest speed possibile
Armor / Max armor for 100 tons

That should equal BV.

Then they should factor in skills BV based on pilot wins/loss record.

While I like the idea of redoing BV (it will need to be done since the metrics will be different from the TT) when you think it through your proposed system leaves a lot to be desired-- it punishes taking AC's while promoting laser boating (damage per ton is much lower for AC's), doesn't factor in tech level differences/equipment (BAP/GECM/NARC/DHS/etc), and doesn't account for how cool a mech runs... and that's just off the top of my head.

[Gaffhook]

Some of the matches don't need to be equal number of players or tonnage on both sides. My favorite matches from NBT were the initial matches of invading a planet. I don't remember exactly since this was 10 years ago, but it was something like... The defending side was limited by players but had unlimited tonnage and the attacking side was limited by tonnage but could have more players. This simulated the planetary garrison that was spread out over the planet vs an ititial scouting force of the attackers. It usually was something like 3 assaults vs 6 light/medium.

In normal matches I don't think that it should be strictly battle value as there should be some advantage for improving the loadout of your mech other than just making your teammates have to be in crappier mechs.

[MaddMaxx]

Kudzu, on 14 May 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

So since you've had BV explained to you about 10 different ways, care to expand on any good points tonnage has?

Sadly, even after 10 "different" explanations, across 3 variants of the system BV - BV2 and some supposed new fangled BV3 , with none showing why BV should reign supreme, that still leaves a hybrid or tonnage.

Perhaps we should implement a Die Roll before the Drop to add in the Pilots Skill modifier to assure a Balanced system.

But you keep clinging to that TT BV system, as surely it will be "the one" TT item that will translate verbatim across the TT to Real-Time chasm that so many others have been lost to.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 16 May 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Sprouticus]

MaddMaxx, on 16 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Sadly, even after 10 "different" explanations, across 3 variants of the system BV - BV2 and some supposed new fangled BV3 , with none showing why BV should reign supreme, that still leaves a hybrid or tonnage.

Perhaps we should implement a Die Roll before the Drop to add in the Pilots Skill modifier to assure a Balanced system.

But you keep clinging to that TT BV system, as surely it will be "the one" TT item that will translate verbatim across the TT to Real-Time chasm that so many others have been lost to.

I have read some very compelling arguments on BV in this thread. I had no opinion one way or the other going into it. Personally I am fine with BV AND tonnage AND player rating AND gorup size. (if in a group). All of those have a place in the matchmaking system.

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 16 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Sadly, even after 10 "different" explanations, across 3 variants of the system BV - BV2 and some supposed new fangled BV3 , with none showing why BV should reign supreme, that still leaves a hybrid or tonnage.

It might help if instead of "BV" we used the term "cost" or "price" in cBills. The short version of why we need to use cost/price over tonnage is that, with different levels of technology, tonnage is not a good representation of how much "mech" there is in a mech.

In this game, we will essentially be dealing with three levels of technology: 3025/IS level 1, 3050+/IS level 2, and (eventually) Clan tech. Each tech level allows you to pack more "mech" (be it firepower, speed, or armor) than the last. This will make prior mechs obselete. I don't think that the devs envision a system where older mechs become obselete. Additionally, a system where older mechs become obselete either gimps new players if only older mechs are available at start (vets will all be in advanced tech mechs) or shaft veterans if everyone has access at start to new mechs (all that money you spent upgrading yoru HBK-4G ... WASTED! now that its 3050).

Consider the following three mechs:
-AS7-D (3025/IS level 1): max armor, 3/5/0, AC20, 4xML, SRM6, LRM20
-AS7-K (3050+/IS level 2): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 2xERLL, 2xMPL, LRM20, AMS
-Dire Wolf A (Clan tech): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 3xcLPL, 2xSSRM6, AMS

All of these mechs are 100 tons, and yet the AS7-D is clearly outclassed by the AS7-K, and the AS7-K is clearly outclassed by the DW-A (I'm assuming you know just how dominant cLPLs are in CBT). With tonnage as the only balancing factor, the Dire Wolf becomes the "end game" mech, and the Atlases just stepping stones.

Now, you might point out that the AS7-D is the only standard engine mech in the list. Well, thats true. However, even if XL mechs are balanced against standard mechs via gameplay mechanics (XL engines being more fragile), you still have the problem of clan tech. The AS7-K is clearly inferior to the DW-A, and the AS7-D will be inferior to any clan-tech standard engined 100 tonner. Additionally, if clan tech is allowed on IS mechs, then any IS mech with clan tech will have an automatic advantage over anything with the same tonnage using only IS tech.

Maybe tonnage only could work with just IS mechs (endosteel and FF armor is still a problem since there's no trade off for most mechs), but with clan tech, it is necessary to include cost ... otherwise clan tech becomes end game tech, or clan tech becomes non-player-character tech.

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 16 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Sadly, even after 10 "different" explanations, across 3 variants of the system BV - BV2 and some supposed new fangled BV3 , with none showing why BV should reign supreme, that still leaves a hybrid or tonnage.

Perhaps we should implement a Die Roll before the Drop to add in the Pilots Skill modifier to assure a Balanced system.

But you keep clinging to that TT BV system, as surely it will be "the one" TT item that will translate verbatim across the TT to Real-Time chasm that so many others have been lost to.

No one is saying use a straight port of the TT system, Max, but the idea behind BV is a much better system than pure tonnage (which you still haven't provided any good points about.). The formulas will have to change but in the end a system that measures relative effectiveness is much better than one than goes only by weight.