73 replies to this topic

[RangerRob]

Just started with the newer Quick Strike rules...But I'm liking the point value system it has so far.

I've run campaigns that I tried to balance the fights based on C-Bills, based on tonnage, based on BV...
Eventually you say the heck with it and blame any unbalanced fights on the dice.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

BV needs to die for the sole purpose of trying to make BV balanced mechs...it was like doing taxes. Now WH40k does things by points as well. You can kit out a squad of guys with x euipment for +y points per model. Not exactly the same as btech but on the right track. You could have stock points costs for engines or speed brackets, tonnage, armor, internals, etc. Then weapons would have costs that stacked on these.

OR my own brutally simple idea: all mechs cost a offensive and defensive value:
Offensive value = damage values for all weapons put together
Defensive Value = run speed + tons of armor
Total Point Cost = Offensive + Defensive

I never got around to full testing this theory but it sorta works:
AS7-D Atlas = 96
COM-2D Commando = 38

it sorta works...
what do you guys think of either angles?

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 07 December 2011 - 07:48 AM.

[Xhaleon]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 07 December 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

BV needs to die for the sole purpose of trying to make BV balanced mechs...it was like doing taxes. Now WH40k does things by points as well. You can kit out a squad of guys with x euipment for +y points per model. Not exactly the same as btech but on the right track. You could have stock points costs for engines or speed brackets, tonnage, armor, internals, etc. Then weapons would have costs that stacked on these.

OR my own brutally simple idea: all mechs cost a offensive and defensive value:
Offensive value = damage values for all weapons put together
Defensive Value = run speed + tons of armor
Total Point Cost = Offensive + Defensive

I never got around to full testing this theory but it sorta works:
AS7-D Atlas = 96
COM-2D Commando = 38

it sorta works...
what do you guys think of either angles?

It's far too simple. You need to account for the heat efficiency of the weapons, how efficiently it can volley fire or if it can alpha strike all day long. You need to recognize the usefulness of large bore weapons with concentrated damage, and then figure out how they compare to those that seek criticals. Some weapons are smaller too, so they are harder to put out of action. Defensive value cannot be calculated entirely through armor, since an ammunition-heavy mech is always in danger of being blown up by a lucky shot. There are also things like ECM modules and CASE to consider.

BV is like doing taxes because making mechs balanced is just as hard. If they assigned mechs BV values by creator fiat, it would only work with canon mechs, and leave customs in the dust. I'd say they really just need to clean up and rebalance the values, lay down the new foundation on paper, hire a programmer for a week, and make a program for it. Then just put the issue to rest. For people who still want to use pencil and paper to build them? Thems the breaks.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Xhaleon, on 07 December 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

It's far too simple. You need to account for the heat efficiency of the weapons, how efficiently it can volley fire or if it can alpha strike all day long. You need to recognize the usefulness of large bore weapons with concentrated damage, and then figure out how they compare to those that seek criticals. Some weapons are smaller too, so they are harder to put out of action. Defensive value cannot be calculated entirely through armor, since an ammunition-heavy mech is always in danger of being blown up by a lucky shot. There are also things like ECM modules and CASE to consider.

BV is like doing taxes because making mechs balanced is just as hard. If they assigned mechs BV values by creator fiat, it would only work with canon mechs, and leave customs in the dust. I'd say they really just need to clean up and rebalance the values, lay down the new foundation on paper, hire a programmer for a week, and make a program for it. Then just put the issue to rest. For people who still want to use pencil and paper to build them? Thems the breaks.

I did say it was brutally simple
I'm sure it could be cleaned up but it would get as bad as the current BV system. Anyone object to a 40k style? just a few bit more 'stock' items for the sake of efficacy?

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

just a few bit more 'stock' items for the sake of efficacy?

You mean canon variants?
What's wrong with the 2000-ish variants we already have?

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 09 December 2011 - 03:01 AM, said:

You mean canon variants?
What's wrong with the 2000-ish variants we already have?

hahaha! I personally don't have anything against variants, in fact due to
the idea that variants are BV-balanced I prefer to use them. It was my assumption
that most people demand customization and thus I was trying to appease
them. Overall I dont like btech customization because of the ridiculous min/maxing
people go through for the sake of a casual tabletop game + how obnoxious the
min/maxing gets with clan tech.

[Randal Waide]

We normally play tonnage.
Heavy lance (201-280 tons)vs heavy lance, etc. And tech level, IS 3025/3050/2750 etc. We set pilot gunnery skills, like " you can have I elite, 1 veteran and 2 regulars" and use the standard values for those.
It works pretty well, and if there is a mech that is overly scary you try to put it down first or stay out of its way.
I know the system was set up for tournament play, but in every battle there will be a stronger opponent. Skill and a little luck makes the tonnage style the most fun. IMHO

[John Clavell]

I think ditching BV could really open up the game not only to new players but make set ups and mechs viable which under BV have stayed shelved for the most part.

[Maurice]

we allways play tons 1,000 vs 1,000 i find it gives you playing room,

[SnowDragon]

Too bad there's no one near me I know to play battletech with these days.

I dunno about losing BVs. Sure, I hated doing them, but it helped keep the game fair. Odd that he ditches the system without even mentioning what'll replace it.

But C-bills and tonnage works just fine in some cases. In classic, sometimes we used to play 1000 tonnes or 60-mil, whichever you hit first. That worked alright. 'Course, it's been a VERY long time since I found anyone to play with.

[Pht]

Honestly, I don't envy anyone who tries to do anything like a system to balance vs what creative players are capable of.

It's almost by definition a losing game.

I'm surprised BV lasted as long as it did. I forget what it was called, but there was a system before we had bv, which got replaced too.


Really, any balancing system is going to have holes in it... especially at the levels of complex interactions that can occur in a game like BT.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I don't know why people whine about bv2 being too complex. There are *free* tools out there for your computer that figure it out for you. If anything bv3 needs to be more complex. The biggest problem with BV in general is that battletech allows customs and it has to account for anything the player might do. Without custom mechs, and even better- specific unit organizations you would have a much much easier time assigning a real BV.

[Sychodemus]

I never really liked combat efficiency balancers in Battletech personally. That is probably because I tend to find myself in RPG-oriented campaigns. In those cases, C-Bills were simply part of the logistics of the players' unit (as was tonnage when calculating drop weights.) Opposing forces tended to simply be randomly generated unless there was a specific theme required. This was the simplest and in many ways, the more realistic and the one that made the most sense in-game and out-of-game.
Ultimately, at least for my circle of players, we preferred non-balanced scenarios because the T-CV-BV-BV2 methods has always been flawed in one way or another and someone will always "game the system."

But obviously that doesn't work for "cold games" or tournaments.

For 1v1 matches the balancers were sometimes woefully inadequate but for 4v4 or larger they were -on average- horrid. That is because the one thing these systems have never been able to account for was the unit as a whole.There were many times when I was running tournaments at different venues, I would look at the opposing sides and I could immediately tell who was going to win even though the balancing systems said it was an even fight. And that was just for 'mechs; once you started introducing non-'mechs into it, it skewed all over the place. Another aspect that BV-BV2 doesn't do well is gauging how much damage a unit took in a battle, so when you add victory conditions and scenario rules into account, the level of victory can be very unclear if not outright wrong. But that is life in BT balance.
I honestly cannot see any way to do it that wouldn't be every bit as bloated as any of the previous iterations, even if it was perfect in a balance sense. Likewise, the less bloated it is, the less balanced it will tend be.

So the obvious solution is to just use random tables for general scenarios. For gunslinger type tournaments give both(all) players the same 'Mech.

[SiriusBeef]

CBVEQ - Corrected Battle Value Equivilents

Meaning that it's time to revisit the math... I'm pretty sure that's what was the meaning. getting rid of the old battle values because they're pretty much useless for getting a balanced game...