25 replies to this topic

[HRR Insanity]

One method of on-going game balancing is to dynamically tweak the 'costs' of weapons as a function of their use/prevalence on the battlefield on a daily or weekly basis. For example, If ERLL becomes the 'best'/most common weapon, the costs (c-bills and/or BV) should increase (with limits) to help incentive other weapons... Similarly, if the AC2 is being underused, the c-bill cost and BV might go down making it a more attractive weapon for those willing to use it.

I haven't seen anything in the Dev blog/comments about this issue and I was curious if it was being considered.

Thoughts?

Insanity

[Warenwolf]

That can really backfire on new players, while established players will not care

[Woodstock]

BV value should stay constant in my opinion but the market value of old tech should in theory go down as new more advanced hardware becomes available. All within reason of course.

[Sesambrot]

It definitely seems interessting enough as an idea, but fact of the matter is, there's only so much you can do with the price of a weaponsystem.
It may alter the popularity of certain weapons a bit, but I don't think you can actually balance gameplay that way.
A horribly overpowered weapon will still be horribly overpowered if it's price is doubled, and an utterly useless weapon will still be utterly useless if it's price is halfed.
All you're doing in that case is to prolong the time it takes players to acquire said weapon, but seeing them used against you in an actual battle, where economy is the last thing you care about, is still going to be rage inducing.

The price of any weapon or equipment in the game should be one of the last, if not the last thing to be changed in order to "rebalance" it, because it is the least important attribute of a weapon or piece of equipment while engaged in combat.

That said, I would like to see this to give an economic touch to the metagame, but not as an actual balanceattempt.
However, I believe a system like this could actually be used in regards to balance, in a way that it may be able to indicate which weapons are worth looking into for a nerf/buff.

Edited by Sesambrot, 29 May 2012 - 05:12 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

I don't know about changing the costs, that would only stifle creativity and leave anyone who did not yet purchase, for example, ER Large Lasers, out in the cold.

Dynamic BV adjustments has some promise, I don't think MWO will stick to TT battle value but will engineer their own based on how the weapons perform in the MWO real-time system. How things perform on paper and how they perform in real time are two different things

[John Clavell]

HRR Insanity, on 29 May 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

One method of on-going game balancing is to dynamically tweak the 'costs' of weapons as a function of their use/prevalence on the battlefield on a daily or weekly basis. For example, If ERLL becomes the 'best'/most common weapon, the costs (c-bills and/or BV) should increase (with limits) to help incentive other weapons... Similarly, if the AC2 is being underused, the c-bill cost and BV might go down making it a more attractive weapon for those willing to use it.

I haven't seen anything in the Dev blog/comments about this issue and I was curious if it was being considered.

Thoughts?

Insanity

Aside from one comment I've seen on this matter, which was that they have their own BV system of sorts that is not a direct reflection of TT BV system, In don't believe anything or much is known on this topic. However, I'd support your proposed system. There is always going to a weapon which is 'better' in some regard, and people will use a lot. There is nothing wrong with it, and in fact considering the nature of F2P can work well by keeping the balance dynamic overtime. An active system such as this would work well on it's own, or in complement to that.

I think, and hope, the days of Clan ERLL being the dominate weapon for year upon year are over (fingers crossed).

[Nighthound]

Actually C-Bill cost could balance the use of specific weapons somewhat, IF (realy BIG IF) it is a factor in repair costs. We don't know enough to speculate on how repair costs will be calculated, but it could be (and I think it's only logical) that damaged/lost/destroyed weapons find their way into a repair formula.

[Striker1980]

C-bill costs could be quite a cool thing to change in a persistent universe though, say Davion takes all the planets with Large laser factories, suddenly L. Lasers gradually become 350,000 cbills a pop for Davion, 600,000 Cbills a pop with Kurita (not picking on Kurita there BTW).

It could also be an interesting method of encouraging people to look at interesting builds using something other than just the highest DPS weapon. (which lets face it is what people will do without any kind of external stimulus).

[TheMagician]

This could be a useful way of balancing weapons, but once you've played a while you'll own basically all the weapons, and it no longer will have much effect.

As for BV, I agree that BV should change. But I think that this form of match balancing will be mostly invisible to the players/teams (until there's some type of a BV cap).

[MaddMaxx]

Striker1980, on 29 May 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

C-bill costs could be quite a cool thing to change in a persistent universe though, say Davion takes all the planets with Large laser factories, suddenly L. Lasers gradually become 350,000 cbills a pop for Davion, 600,000 Cbills a pop with Kurita (not picking on Kurita there BTW).

It could also be an interesting method of encouraging people to look at interesting builds using something other than just the highest DPS weapon. (which lets face it is what people will do without any kind of external stimulus).

If they were to even consider that Planets have Weapons factories, and that the ownership of said Planet(s) somehow was to factor into the cost of said weapons, what happens when one House does get control of all those Planets? If the pricing is not biased enough, it is a pointless effort to go after these targets and charging the other factions 250K more per unit would be totally unfair.

Having to ban together to take away said planets leaves the same issue. If they have captured them, then they can obviously also defend them. If it takes the combined forces of 2-3 other factions to take them away, which of this new coalition (if even doable) gets the Planet, and thus reaps the Bonus pricing after said capture? Or do Coalition factions take turns, thus destroying the Meta game from the inside out. No thanks...

Range, Heat and Damage are the keys to any weapons system. Tweak these if need be but cost only affects those who have little to no base resource income. Meaning the Rich get Richer and the Poor go play something else out of sheer frustration.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 29 May 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[enc0re]

Bad idea. The best weapons would still be best, just less affordable to field. Since this is a freemium game, that would result in pay-to-win. The only proper way to balance is the hard way. Watch usage statistics, forum discussion, and player feedback: then nerf and buff equipment as necessary. There'll always be griping but it's necessary. Blizzard are the masters at this.

[HRR Insanity]

enc0re, on 29 May 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Bad idea. The best weapons would still be best, just less affordable to field. Since this is a freemium game, that would result in pay-to-win. The only proper way to balance is the hard way. Watch usage statistics, forum discussion, and player feedback: then nerf and buff equipment as necessary. There'll always be griping but it's necessary. Blizzard are the masters at this.

*sighs* There will always be 'better' weapons. Even in Starcraft or other Blizzard games, there are still 'optimal' builds, weapons, etc. The intention of this suggestion is to provide a pendulum to push the metagame away from the 'current best' to another group of builds.

So, let's pretend that there is BV balancing going on for drops. After a few months of play, the standard weapons seem to be LRMs and PPCs (just an example, don't freak out). So, as AC2s become less and less common, their BV drops. Some enterprising mercenaries recognize this and start building and deploying AC2 boats... And because of the BV variation, they're getting matched up against lances that are slightly lighter but running LRMs and PPCs. The AC2 boats are thus balanced out against the 'good' weapons.

I was just wondering if the Devs are planning on implementing anything like this...

Insanity

Edited by HRR Insanity, 29 May 2012 - 07:12 AM.

[Sesambrot]

HRR Insanity, on 29 May 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

*sighs* There will always be 'better' weapons. Even in Starcraft or other Blizzard games, there are still 'optimal' builds, weapons, etc. The intention of this suggestion is to provide a pendulum to push the metagame away from the 'current best' to another group of builds.

So, let's pretend that there is BV balancing going on for drops. After a few months of play, the standard weapons seem to be LRMs and PPCs (just an example, don't freak out). So, as AC2s become less and less common, their BV drops. Some enterprising mercenaries recognize this and start building and deploying AC2 boats... And because of the BV variation, they're getting matched up against lances that are slightly lighter but running LRMs and PPCs. The AC2 boats are thus balanced out against the 'good' weapons.

I was just wondering if the Devs are planning on implementing anything like this...

Insanity

Sorry to say, but that wouldn't work...

first of all, due to the hardpointlimitations boating will be kept to a minimum, and if that's the only way to make a bad weapon usefull, then do not want! rather do a proper balance pass on them...

secondly, you cannot balance the effectiveness of one weapon versus another simply by applying a BV that is calculated by how often the weapons are being used.
Lets assume in your example the AC2 is heavily underused, and you actually do end up with a heavier ac2 team vs a lighter PPC/LRM team. what is there to prevent the PPC/LRM-team from being utterly destroyed due to the sheer amount of AC2s, and them not being as bad as the BV may indicate? The other way around, lets assume PPC/LRMs aren't all that overused, and the PPC/LRM team obliterates the AC2 team.
And all because of a balancesystem that actually does not take into account the actual effectiveness of a weaponsystem, but rather it's popularity. Furthermore, this system cannot take into account the reasons why a particular weapon might be unpopular, maybe it does decent damage/dps, but is hard to aim for newbies, so it only gets used by seasoned vets.

As I've said before, changing the cost, based on demand, would add a nice economic touch, but actually balancing the game through that is simply not possible due to the fact that the price of a weapon does not matter when you are actually in combat.

Edited by Sesambrot, 29 May 2012 - 07:58 AM.

[FrostPaw]

Warenwolf, on 29 May 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

That can really backfire on new players, while established players will not care

I agree with this, if I'm a new player, inflated prices on the most popular weapons forces me to not use them as early, where as if I'm a long time player, I already own said weapons so wouldn't care at all.

[HRR Insanity]

FrostPaw, on 29 May 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

I agree with this, if I'm a new player, inflated prices on the most popular weapons forces me to not use them as early, where as if I'm a long time player, I already own said weapons so wouldn't care at all.

Why? If you can carry more of the less popular weapons for less money AND get a tonnage advantage in the lance vs. lance combat... you'll end up making more money in the long run because your costs will be lower.

Even established players will have to repair or replace their gear after the fight... and the c-bill costs would affect that as well.

Insanity

[HRR Insanity]

Sesambrot, on 29 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Sorry to say, but that wouldn't work...

Famous last words.

Quote

first of all, due to the hardpointlimitations boating will be kept to a minimum, and if that's the only way to make a bad weapon usefull, then do not want! rather do a proper balance pass on them...

Bull. Any mech that can pack 8+ MLs will be a boat. And you can fit 8MLs on almost anything. No, you won't be able to truly boat, but if you can't figure out a way to pack on a bunch of one type of weapon (to the extent the mech allows), then you have never used a mechlab before. There will ALWAYS be boats, just a matter of degree.

Quote

secondly, you cannot balance the effectiveness of one weapon versus another simply by applying a BV that is calculated by how often the weapons are being used.

Yes, you can. It's a metagame function that is derived from everyone's usage of said weapons. Weapons that are good will be used more often. That's just how the game works.

Quote

Lets assume in your example the AC2 is heavily underused, and you actually do end up with a heavier ac2 team vs a lighter PPC/LRM team. what is there to prevent the PPC/LRM-team from being utterly destroyed due to the sheer amount of AC2s, and them not being as bad as the BV may indicate? The other way around, lets assume PPC/LRMs aren't all that overused, and the PPC/LRM team obliterates the AC2 team.

So what? After a few days of this, everyone would switch to the other weapons... and the BVs would then adjust... EVENTUALLY, the dynamic nature of the BVs would harmonize with actual utility.

It's basically a simple application of economics/scarcity to resolve a non-quantifiable endpoint. Just like bacteria will seek out the lowest concentrations of antibiotics, players will seek out the best combination of effectiveness as a function of the in-game cost.

It's inevitable.

Quote

And all because of a balancesystem that actually does not take into account the actual effectiveness of a weaponsystem, but rather it's popularity. Furthermore, this system cannot take into account the reasons why a particular weapon might be unpopular, maybe it does decent damage/dps, but is hard to aim for newbies, so it only gets used by seasoned vets.

The best part of the system is that it doesn't need to know the reason. If a weapon is more often utilized, then it is good. By definition. And people playing with 'easy to use' weapons as opposed to 'hard to use' weapons will automatically sort out the balance of the BVs over time. Yes, there may be some situations where veterans using 'hard' weapons may get matched against newbs using 'easy' weapons, but if the BVs are balanced... that's the whole point.

Quote

As I've said before, changing the cost, based on demand, would add a nice economic touch, but actually balancing the game through that is simply not possible due to the fact that the price of a weapon does not matter when you are actually in combat.

Yes, it does matter. Especially when you're dropping into a conflict that is largely decided by the matchmaking system as 'fair'. So if your lance of buddies is running all AC2s, you may get pitted against an equally balanced force of lighter mechs running MGs. And if you kick their ***... well, then maybe the people who got ***-handed will use AC2s... and thus the BV balancing works over time.

It adds a bit of complexity to the metagame and prevents any single weapon from becoming 'useless'. If the BV is low enough, even a small laser could potentially be cost effective.

Insanity

PS: This system works very well in lots of other games...

[Sesambrot]

HRR Insanity, on 29 May 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

PS: This system works very well in lots of other games...

For example?

My point stands, In MWO, prices won't have much of an effect.
the reason simply being, that buying weapons is not an essential part of gameplay, in that respect MWO is more like WoT than anything else.
All you're doing by increasing the price of an overused weapon is to further seperate the newbs from the vets, because the vets will already have those weapons or the money to afford them, and give the newbs only crap to play with. Since the actual game is still centered around mech to mech combat rather than economics, players will always strive to obtain the best possible weapon, no matter how much it costs, it only takes them longer to get there. Furthermore you would make the gap between paying and non-paying customers bigger, which is a delicate thing to balance as well.
And I already mentioned it before, if the weapon is crap noone is going to bother with it no matter how cheap it is.

With regards to boating, I am aware that there will always be boating to some extent, but nowhere near what it used to be in MW3, you can't stick a bazillion Mguns on a mech, and kill an assault within a matter of seconds. And if the system they are using for MWO is worth anything, then it's not going to be possible to boat any kind of weapon to the extend that makes the crapiest weapon match the best in any way.

The only thing that would come from this, if put in to the extent you're suggesting, is that you'd end up with one cheapass variant being pitted against another cheapass variant, and that's not what anyone wants to see this game turn into.
Besides, the game should not be about customizing your mech to fit the current economy, but to customize it to fit your playstyle.

[HRR Insanity]

Sesambrot, on 29 May 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

For example?

Any game that takes player skill/level/equipment into account when match-makinging uses this concept. Starcraft, WoT, GhostRecon, MW2, etc.

Quote

My point stands, In MWO, prices won't have much of an effect. the reason simply being, that buying weapons is not an essential part of gameplay, in that respect MWO is more like WoT than anything else.

Repair costs will be affected. And ammo costs... it all matters.

Regardless, dynamic changes to BV are going to be way more important and that was also a question asked to the Devs in my original post.

Quote

All you're doing by increasing the price of an overused weapon is to further seperate the newbs from the vets, because the vets will already have those weapons or the money to afford them, and give the newbs only crap to play with. Since the actual game is still centered around mech to mech combat rather than economics, players will always strive to obtain the best possible weapon, no matter how much it costs, it only takes them longer to get there. Furthermore you would make the gap between paying and non-paying customers bigger, which is a delicate thing to balance as well.

/shrugs/ I'll definitely be trying to maximize my economic gains while kicking other mechs to the curb. But as I've stated, BV will have a dramatic impact on gameplay. If I decide to run an Atlas with 15 MGs and the BV driven system matches me again 2 lights each with 4 MLs... I'd be interested to see how that played out.

Quote

And I already mentioned it before, if the weapon is crap noone is going to bother with it no matter how cheap it is.

Yep, but if there are slight imbalances, this will address them.

Quote

With regards to boating, I am aware that there will always be boating to some extent, but nowhere near what it used to be in MW3, you can't stick a bazillion Mguns on a mech, and kill an assault within a matter of seconds. And if the system they are using for MWO is worth anything, then it's not going to be possible to boat any kind of weapon to the extend that makes the crapiest weapon match the best in any way.

Nope, but again, if you encourage a bit of diversity through cost manipulation (BV, not c-bill), then you'll see a more rich gameplay experience.

Quote

The only thing that would come from this, if put in to the extent you're suggesting, is that you'd end up with one cheapass variant being pitted against another cheapass variant, and that's not what anyone wants to see this game turn into.
Besides, the game should not be about customizing your mech to fit the current economy, but to customize it to fit your playstyle.

/shrugs/ The game is about customizing your mech and kicking other mech's *****. If the Devs want to encourage people to use under-used weapons, this is one way to do it. And heck, if people really want to keep the 'best' weapons cheap, just make all weapons DECREASED cost or DECREASED BV relative to the 'best' weapons which retain their standard set costs.

I just want to know if the Devs are including this idea...

Insanity

[Kittygrinder]

This thread of no use. This is a system they would never use, so why argue over it?

[Woska]

BV will be static, it has to be.

However C-bill costs may change for different factions. And even then, I think it will only be for complete mechs. Trying to create balance through financial restrictions is exactly the wrong way to do it. That simply makes the wealthy (or frivolous) more powerful than others.