476 replies to this topic

[Gaffhook]

If the limit is strictly team BV, what is the point of customizing your mech? If I pimp out my 50 ton medium mech and it boosts the BV up to the same as a stock 70 ton mech what is the point? I'd probably have been more useful to my team in the 70 ton mech.

Tonnage is better for the game in the long run I think. People will spend more time and money and have more long term game goals with team tonnage as the limiting factor.

[Kudzu]

Gaffhook, on 16 May 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

If the limit is strictly team BV, what is the point of customizing your mech? If I pimp out my 50 ton medium mech and it boosts the BV up to the same as a stock 70 ton mech what is the point? I'd probably have been more useful to my team in the 70 ton mech.

Tonnage is better for the game in the long run I think. People will spend more time and money and have more long term game goals with team tonnage as the limiting factor.

If you have the same BV you should have about the same effectiveness, so it should be an even match with your pimped out ride vs the stock 70 tonner. The point being you can take what you'd prefer rather than have to give up your favorite ride for something bigger/smaller.

[Gaffhook]

Kudzu, on 16 May 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

If you have the same BV you should have about the same effectiveness, so it should be an even match with your pimped out ride vs the stock 70 tonner. The point being you can take what you'd prefer rather than have to give up your favorite ride for something bigger/smaller.

Sure this makes things more balanced for the newbies, but it seems to kill a lot of the lasting appeal of the game. Why try to get that rare lostech or clan (when it comes out) equipment or mech if all it does is boost your BV a ton and you get no net advantage over some crappy heavy or assault that anyone can have in a few days. Players spending $$$ is better for the game in the long run and I think that using BV discourages people spending $$$ to get that slight advantage.

[StaIker]

I have a feeling that the matchmaker is going to look a lot like the disastrous WoT model to start with. It's the easiet to implement for the Devs and creates the most mathematically balanced games overall as players are selected in pairs of equal BV and then placed one to a side until each team is full. The problems it will cause are not immediately obvious unless you've seen how NR games played out in MW4 and I don't think any of the Devs have, or at least none have indicated that.

[Kudzu]

Gaffhook, on 16 May 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Sure this makes things more balanced for the newbies, but it seems to kill a lot of the lasting appeal of the game. Why try to get that rare lostech or clan (when it comes out) equipment or mech if all it does is boost your BV a ton and you get no net advantage over some crappy heavy or assault that anyone can have in a few days. Players spending $$$ is better for the game in the long run and I think that using BV discourages people spending $$$ to get that slight advantage.

Not at all. I posted a Dragon I made in another thread that featured a Gauss rifle, 4 medium lasers, 2 streak-2's, max armor, BAP, and GECW... and still had a top speed of 86 KPH while running perfectly cool. Compare that to a stock Awesome-- I'm 32 KPH faster, with more firepower, better heat curve, and close to the same amount of armor (although with the XL engine I'm easier to kill).

I would think my BV would be above that of a mech that's 20 tons heavier considering how many advantages I have... and that more often than not I would beat that stock Awesome one on one.

Edited by Kudzu, 16 May 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Just chiming in to say in the Dev Answers thread, they've confirmed a Tonnage, BV or combination system in matchmaking. So it looks like we're getting the best of both worlds!

[StaIker]

Or the worst.

[Outlaw2]

Or the average.

Honestly, any system can suck , if implemented badly.
A "BV" system is so open ended that it has a near limitless range of possibilities on how exactly to implement it. I have an idea of course, but its pointless getting into the nitty-gritty details until we have gotten our hands on the game.
All I'm basically advocating now is that game considers more than just the tonnage and has a look at more of the mech the players are taking (though I would hope the game AT LEAST considers tonnage).

Edited by =Outlaw=, 16 May 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[StaIker]

And it's all for nothing if there is no pre-game lobby for customisation anyway. Damn this waiting.

[Victor Morson]

=Outlaw=, on 16 May 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Or the average.

Honestly, any system can suck , if implemented badly.
A "BV" system is so open ended that it has a near limitless range of possibilities on how exactly to implement it. I have an idea of course, but its pointless getting into the nitty-gritty details until we have gotten our hands on the game.
All I'm basically advocating now is that game considers more than just the tonnage and has a look at more of the mech the players are taking (though I would hope the game AT LEAST considers tonnage).

Given they have no confirmed that you can pick any class of 'mech (in a starter variant) at the beginning - and Awesomes are the lightest Assault - I guess we'll put the tonnage thing to the test when our team rolls all Awesomes (and a Raven).

[Yeach]

Divide the BV- types in to a tier system.

Say
0 - 500 Tier 1
501 - 1000 Tier 2
1001 - 1500 Tier 3
and work from there.

Either restricted T1 vs T1 matches
Or 2 x T1 vs T2 matches
etc

[Woska]

Give the option to do either one each round.

BV is flawed. Some of the stuff is seriously overrated in BV, like jump jets.

Strictly by tonnage is also limited because lighter mechs of equal tonnage just don't have the equivalent firepower of their larger opponents. The engines to make them faster take up too much space.

So give people the choice.

[Belisarius1]

Woska, on 23 May 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Strictly by tonnage is also limited because lighter mechs of equal tonnage just don't have the equivalent firepower of their larger opponents. The engines to make them faster take up too much space.

...what?

[MaddMaxx]

Given zorak's Mech listing, and their BV's, it is obvious the Clan Mech is superior, but we already knew that.

As for the Atlases, does 92 points of BV really make that much difference?

Apparently it does, as I believe zorak when he states

Quote

"and yet the AS7-D is clearly outclassed by the AS7-K,"

so given 92 points is a major increase, then the 1000+ points of the DW would indicate something is off, or is the DW 100 times the Mech the AS7-K is? That would be a tough sell anywhere right?

Consider the following three mechs:

-AS7-D (3025/IS level 1): max armor, 3/5/0, AC20, 4xML, SRM6, LRM20 - BV = 1,557

-AS7-K (3050+/IS level 2): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 2xERLL, 2xMPL, LRM20, AMS - BV = 1,649

-Dire Wolf A (Clan tech): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 3xcLPL, 2xSSRM6, AMS - BV = 2,689

Edited by MaddMaxx, 24 May 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 24 May 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Given zorak's Mech listing, and their BV's, it is obvious the Clan Mech is superior, but we already knew that.

As for the Atlases, does 92 points of BV really make that much difference?

Apparently it does, as I believe zorak when he states



so given 92 points is a major increase, then the 1000+ points of the DW would indicate something is off, or is the DW 100 times the Mech the AS7-K is? That would be a tough sell anywhere right?

Consider the following three mechs:

-AS7-D (3025/IS level 1): max armor, 3/5/0, AC20, 4xML, SRM6, LRM20 - BV = 1,557

-AS7-K (3050+/IS level 2): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 2xERLL, 2xMPL, LRM20, AMS - BV = 1,649

-Dire Wolf A (Clan tech): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 3xcLPL, 2xSSRM6, AMS - BV = 2,689

The simple answer is that BV is off and that you can't measure combat effectivness by a simple formula. If the AS7-D and the AS7-K were to face off at close range or on a flat featurless map, then their close BVs may be reflective of their relative chances of victory. What BV can't tell you is how the K can fight at any range and has roughly the same firepower as the D up close.

As for the DW, the DW may very well be twice the mech that the Atlas's are, but still it only has the armor of one atlas.

The difference between BV and Cost is that BV is a formula and Cost would be an arithmatic addition of a value for each component of the mech. My preference is for cost. The lack of a formula would prevent players from finding loopholes to cheat it, and it would reward players who find combat effective combinations of equipment at a given price point. It would also make balancing the game on the fly easier, as you would only need to adjust the prices of unbalanced equipment, while with BV you might have to change the formula which would affect everything.

[Outlaw2]

zorak ramone, on 24 May 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

The difference between BV and Cost is that BV is a formula and Cost would be an arithmatic addition of a value for each component of the mech. My preference is for cost. The lack of a formula would prevent players from finding loopholes to cheat it, and it would reward players who find combat effective combinations of equipment at a given price point. It would also make balancing the game on the fly easier, as you would only need to adjust the prices of unbalanced equipment, while with BV you might have to change the formula which would affect everything.

Yeah, I prefer "costs" as well using your definition. I have been avoiding calling cost or cbills, since it confuses people with the actual cbills in the game used outside the match to buy stuff in the game shop. Of course calling it "BV" confuses people into thinking you are talking specifically about the TT's BV system....like Woska up above.
It needs its own name...

Edited by =Outlaw=, 24 May 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 24 May 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Given zorak's Mech listing, and their BV's, it is obvious the Clan Mech is superior, but we already knew that.

As for the Atlases, does 92 points of BV really make that much difference?

Apparently it does, as I believe zorak when he states



so given 92 points is a major increase, then the 1000+ points of the DW would indicate something is off, or is the DW 100 times the Mech the AS7-K is? That would be a tough sell anywhere right?

Consider the following three mechs:

-AS7-D (3025/IS level 1): max armor, 3/5/0, AC20, 4xML, SRM6, LRM20 - BV = 1,557

-AS7-K (3050+/IS level 2): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 2xERLL, 2xMPL, LRM20, AMS - BV = 1,649

-Dire Wolf A (Clan tech): max armor, 3/5/0, GR, 3xcLPL, 2xSSRM6, AMS - BV = 2,689

The DW-A is one of the nastiest mechs in the TT-- the GR and 3 cLPL's combine to put out 45 points of damage at 20 hexes (1 hex short of max LRM range)... and the LPL's have a -2 to-hit bonus to boot(meaning their more likely to hit while still putting out the same damage and heat with a slightly better range as an IS PPC). As you get closer the 12 streak SRM's chew threw the holes your big weapons open up and it runs cool on top of it all (40 heat dissapation per turn, with a max build up of 42 while alpha-striking+running+AMS).

By comparison the Atlas K has shorter range, less overall damage output, and serious heat issues... along with suffering the detriments of an IS XL engine. It's two medium pulse lasers are rear-mounted, meaning they won't see much use while still taking up 4 tons of space. It has 20 single heatsinks, which means to stay cool you only fire 1 ERLL per turn (12 heat each) while mixing in Gauss and LRM fire. It's outgunned at range and outgunned even worse up close, so yeah, there's a big BV gap with the DW for a reason. It's close in BV to the Atlas D due to it's heat issues and the XL engine (better at longe range, much worse at close range, relatively more vulnerable).

[Squigles]

I actually voted for Weight Slots. We're playing a game with unlockable benefits based on, essentially, play time (XP for unlockable benefits, and C-bills for mech upgrades and customization). Given the fact that perfect balance is already jetisoned out the air lock by the meta game, and that by extension this games ability to be truly looked at as an "e-sport" went out the door with it, it seems silly (silly as in attempting to balance a situation that is by default unbalanceable due to the meta game) to look at a strict balancing system beyond ensuring diversity on the battlefield through a forced spread of mech weight categories.

As far as BV and weight limits go, we already know mech weight as a total team tonnage is a horrific means of balancing forces (any given mech of a specific weight can have massively varying capabilities), and as those with extensive TT experience can tell you, BV is equally inefficient as a balancing factor (it's better, but by no means even close to perfect).

[MrM1971]

Tonnage is best way to go.

Value of the mech is a advantage but this advantage has to be earned.

Value can be defeated by player skill and team skill ( how often do you see a sports team that is way way way better lose to another team due to beeing overconfident and then playing poorly ).

Inner sphere mechs that get stuck fighting Clan mechs ( or mechs that have clan tech added to them ) may be at a disadvantage but can still perform there role in combat .

ps keep in mind that unless you join battles with a group of pre determind people or end up fighting groups of premade stacked groups you will end up fighting mixed groups of values anyways.

[MechRaccoon]

Victor Morson, on 01 March 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

I would say that, except that in MWO it's clear that 'mechs will be of the same chassis and different capabilities. Really the thing that got me thinking most about this was Living Legends, where the very same 'mech can range from terrible to extremely powerful and the price reflects that.

Say we have two teams with 4 Hunchbacks. Team 1 has 4 Hunchbacks with AC/20s or Medium Lasers. Team 2 has 4 Hunchbacks with Gauss Rifles, UAC/20s and LBX/20s. Really, despite both weighing in at 200 tons, one team has a massive advantage.

As a result, another positive thing I like about the BV/C-Bill system is that less effective 'mechs that aren't "min/max'ed" serve a very important role as simply being easier to fit into missions. I would rather that a 'mech sporting 5 ER Large beams of death be balanced by increasing it's cost and making it harder to fit into a drop (requiring other sacrifices to do it) than I would it be artifically nerfed in some way or left unchecked.

Good god, you're right! I'm changing vote right nao!