The MP Community Proposal for Mech Prices

[ronhatch]

The idea that I want to try for MP balancing is simply calculating Elo ratings for every mech.

It would get way too complicated for custom mechs, but would likely be helpful for stock matches. Figuring out the actual math of it is slightly over my head and would take some research if I was doing it, but my statistician brother claims that it's fairly straightforward conceptually. If you have a way of computing the expected win probability for a given match, then Elo simply adjusts the weightings towards the observed results... incrementally improving the accuracy of the expected win probability.

 

[Zakhodit]

Thanks to @R1H4 who ran some numbers. The results are as follows:


This is the factoring that R1H4 did to determine the value (if any) of hard points.

The resutls are:

Walk Distance is directly tied to the engine and the sprint value tied to the max number of jump jets. The cost of the engine is already in the base Chassis cost. And the cost of Jump Jets is added when they are placed on the mech. As such there is no need to further incur a cost for Jump Jet hard points. We'd just be stacking money for no reason.

The rest of the numbers show that hard points do in fact have an intrinsic value. If this value is not reflected in the cost of the Chassis, then it is not represented as a value the mech has. This allows mechs to increase their value with no penalty. This is something that needs to be added (preferably by HBS) To make the C-BILL value as correct as possible.

What exactly to make them worth, I'm not sure yet. Based on what R1H4 came up, it is simplified as:

Ballistic Hardpoint = N
Support Hardpoint = N*1.333
Missile Hardpoint = N*2
Energy Hardpoint = N*2.333

What remains is to determine what N is. The idea is to create an effect on the cost of the Mechs that creates a better balance for Multiplayer while at the same time does not impact the Single player experience. (The reason is that HBS is unlikely to create change if it does not meet this standard) EDIT: None of this is accurate. See below posts

Even once N is determined this isn't complete.

How to value CT ammo needs to be addressed (Or since we have C.A.S.E. for free, all CT ammo needs to be moved out as there is no reason for it to be there anymore)

The actual cost of ammo needs to be looked at. According to Sarna.net, In 3025 one C-Bill is equal to $5.00 US (In 1986 That's $11.28 adjusted for today). A MG ammo crate costs 9,000 C-Bills in game. I know the Crate isn't actually how much the ammo costs, but 100,000 dollars is a bit steep for an ammo crate. And MG in the CT is a huge liability. Moving all CT ammo out of the CT is something HBS really needs to consider as it's easier than mucking with the price of ammo.

Currently a Flamer and a Small Laser are the same price. Should they be?

[Mod edit: Bandwagoning, and flamebait]

Please weigh in

 

[ronhatch]

The rest of the numbers show that hard points do in fact have an intrinsic value. If this value is not reflected in the cost of the Chassis, then it is not represented as a value the mech has. This allows mechs to increase their value with no penalty. This is something that needs to be added (preferably by HBS) To make the C-BILL value as correct as possible.

It's been way too long for me to remember where I read it, but if I'm remembering correctly one of the devs explicitly stated that the hardpoints were a factor in chassis cost.

It's entirely possible and I'd say even likely that the original value isn't quite right, but it was definitely considered.

Edit: And actually, isn't that exactly what the regression that was run is saying?

The inputs to that regression were the in-game cost and the stats of each chassis, right?

So then the output would simply be an approximation of the cost the developer assigned to it... skewed somewhat by any errors in the assumptions made about the cost formula. (Since the chassis is all in one piece, it doesn't have to be as simple as just adding up the cost of the factors that go into it.)

 

[Prussian Havoc]

@ronhatch, I too recall an HBS Dev speaking about Harpoints being a variable in the value of a BATTLETECH BattleMech. Though I distinctly recall the comment comment that Jordan was driving the current BATTLETECH BV Process and that it included no "premiums or discounts" of any kind, simply a straight addition of the cost of components, Hardpoints being one such BattleMech Component.

Of course this above process is kind of at the Art of what we are trying to get at, isn't it?

Not all Support Hardpoints are created equal are they?

One or two Flamers on a Mech are within combat tolerances, are they not...

But the ability to loadout SIX Flamers? Well should there not be a premium paid for those sixth, fifth and fourth Support Hardpoints? I believe there is an excellent case for a critical mass of hard points being reached, and this should drive and corresponding adjustment to Mech Final Prices. Nothing too far great, but even a few percentage points of cost, are in the long run appropriate, right and proper, I beleive.

Similarly with the eight Energy Hardpoints on the Hunchback-4P, May that seventh and eight Energy Hardpoint should be the point where for the Hunchback-4P, the valuation of Energy Hardpoints begins to increasingly diverge.



I am not saying these are all #StomeColdLocks for Dev action, I am instead offering up the opinion for discussion that in a straight summation of a list of BattleMech components, some components just by their sheer volume, may be worthy of divergent valuation.

 

[Zakhodit]

@ronhatch after a long discussion with @R1H4 it turns out I misspoke.

I’m on my phone right now but I’ll get a clarification done soon. The short answer is: if HBS assigned value to the hard points it’s either incomplete or inconsistent across all mechs.

I also want to address the ELO tracking idea.

Also I need to clarify excaly what the goal of all this is as there is a great deal of misunderstanding

 

[Zakhodit]

@Prussian Havoc you point out a situation that makes mechs like the Firestarter and 4P powerful

A battle value system, even an excellent one, cannot solve every instance in a system as complex as Battletech.

However the current value system falls short of accurately representing the true value of all parts in the game.

As I’ve shown above a very small change in chassis price can have a huge effect on the make up of a lance.

The Chassis in the game have issues and they aren’t related to price. The Cicada-3C has four(4) ballistic hard points. @R1H4 pointed out that this is likely because in the early stages of development support hard points did not exist. The engine is so big you’d never be able to mount an AC of any size without stripping everything else off. You certainly would never mount 4 of them. More than likely these ballistic hard points should be support hard points.

Unless changed, anything done to balance a firestarter will ruin the 3C even more.

Another outlier is the Shadow Hawk 2D. There is no reasonable way to modify the CBill costs that will accurately reflect its battle value without wrecking havoc on every other chassis in the game.

Outliers are going to exist. My hope is to offer a suggestion to HBS that will bring balance closer than what it is now. In the case of some outliers, adjustments will have to be made outside of the game. Such as special rules for a tournament or a BV system agreed to by players.

There is no one ring to rule them all. But we can adjust the fulcrum so that the scales swing at a more manageable pace rather than slam down awkwardly when left alone.

 

[ronhatch]

@ronhatch, I too recall an HBS Dev speaking about Harpoints being a variable in the value of a BATTLETECH BattleMech. Though I distinctly recall the comment comment that Jordan was driving the current BATTLETECH BV Process and that it included no "premiums or discounts" of any kind, simply a straight addition of the cost of components, Hardpoints being one such BattleMech Component.

I'd venture a guess that the "no premiums or discounts" comment was specifically directed at the player-accessible part of the construction process and had nothing to do with the behind-the-scenes valuation of the individual components that we get. The value of the mech is simply the chassis value plus the value of each of the components mounted on it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the value of a chassis has to be a straight additive formula, since we never see any indication of how that value is derived.

In fact, when I was trying to reverse-engineer the chassis value during the beta, there appeared to be values that simply couldn't fit into any kind of add-up-the-parts formula. It's possible that they were simply entry errors from when the data was brought into the game engine, but I think it's more likely that the value has some non-linear components to it.

I want to figure out a workable formula not for MP, but simply so that I can assign reasonable costs to mechs constructed from scratch using the full TT rules.