The first issue I have with BV in general is that it is very, very good at hiding real problems. If ERLLs are overpowered, I would rather they actually be nerfed. You can
balance with BV, but that doesn't mean you always should. I'm very concerned that BV frequently becomes an excuse to never change anything about a weapon except its BV.
Second, I wouldn't balance through C-bills at all. I'm strongly of the opinion that metagame-based balancing is doomed to failure because players always become richer than the system is designed to deal with. You're then forced to bump costs to compensate, which cripples new players. And worst of all, a successfully balanced market is an environment that's dangerously close to pay-to-win, where the only way to get good numbers of powerful assets is to buy them.
Finally, it's important to realise that a market-based BV system by nature balances for the skill average when you should be balancing for the skill maximum. That leads to a number of problems, particularly at the top (which I assume HRR intends to inhabit).
It's possible that some weapons or tactics will only be strong among really, really good players because most people aren't able to use them to their fullest extent. Weapons with these characteristics will be undervalued in a market system because although they're broken, they're only prevalent in a small chunk of the playerbase. This keeps their price low and hides the fact that they're hideously strong once you mount the skill curve. The other side of the coin is that easy-to-use weapons can saturate lower-skill tiers, while actually being perfectly balanced once people know how to deal with them. These weapons would be so overpriced as to never be worth using in higher tiers.
Edited by Belisarius1, 29 May 2012 - 07:19 PM.