73 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

I'd suspect some iterration of the BV system that is more appropriate to a FPSimulation system. A 1:1 version of the BV system of the TT game would obviously not marry well to a MechWarrior game, but to completely disassociate the two would be, in my opinion, just as bad. There needs to be a BV BASED system of balance. Especially considering that a tonnage based system would never work without the bigger is better mentality becoming the dominating and only system of balance without it.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

I'd suspect some iterration of the BV system that is more appropriate to a FPSimulation system. A 1:1 version of the BV system of the TT game would obviously not marry well to a MechWarrior game, but to completely disassociate the two would be, in my opinion, just as bad. There needs to be a BV BASED system of balance. Especially considering that a tonnage based system would never work without the bigger is better mentality becoming the dominating and only system of balance without it.

Yeah but this thread is about the tabletop BV system going away.

[Halfinax]

CaveMan, on 22 November 2011 - 06:40 PM, said:

Yeah but this thread is about the tabletop BV system going away.

I don't entirely see how this is relevant to what I said. I believe that the TT version of the BV system is indeed irrelevant, but that some semblance of it is necessary for a FPSimulation MMO version of the Battletech/Mechwarrior version of the universe. Obviously a direct iteration of the TT BV system would not work and needs to be killed, but an abstraction of that system, even if it is called something different, would be necessary to ensure balanced and fair gameplay especially if they are going to allow full customization of 'Mechs. Anything less than a semblance of adherence to that system would be a vote for unbalanced gameplay, and a vote for bigger is better mechanic.

Edited by Halfinax, 22 November 2011 - 08:22 PM.

[Ghost]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

I don't entirely see how this is relevant to what I said. I believe that the TT version of the BV system is indeed irrelevant, but that some semblance of it is necessary for a FPSimulation MMO version of the Battletech/Mechwarrior version of the universe. Obviously a direct iteration of the TT BV system would not work and needs to be killed, but an abstraction of that system, even if it is called something different, would be necessary to ensure balanced and fair gameplay especially if they are going to allow full customization of 'Mechs. Anything less than a semblance of adherence to that system would be a vote for unbalanced gameplay, and a vote for bigger is better mechanic.

He was pointing out that this is specifically the tabletop forum, and you're dragging the thread off-topic. We're discussing the implications of the BV system in Battletech being changed for something else, would you care to join us?

[Halfinax]

Ghost, on 22 November 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

He was pointing out that this is specifically the tabletop forum, and you're dragging the thread off-topic. We're discussing the implications of the BV system in Battletech being changed for something else, would you care to join us?

UHHHHHHHH, That is specifically what I was talking about! You need to read my post perhaps. The BV system obviously needs some serious reinterpretation to work within a FPSimulation system, but cannot be completely be ignored. Reading comprehension is advisable in text based communications.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:

UHHHHHHHH, That is specifically what I was talking about!

Why do you keep talking about FPS games then?

[Halfinax]

You seem to be suggesting that First Person Shooters are identical to First Person Simulations. I made distinction there, but you seem to be ignoring that. I referred to this game as a FPSimulation, and not a FPShooter. If you want to ignore nuances, than perhaps we should throw out all logical arguments.

In First Person Shooters the person with the single most powerful weapon, and the best aim wins, and in a First Person Simulation the person most capable of placing themselves in an advantageous position wins. Although to a layman the difference may seem insignificant the fact of the matter remains that it is very significant. In one personal reaction and twitch skill reigns supreme, but in the other tactical decision making is king.

Try again.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

You seem to be suggesting that First Person Shooters are identical to First Person Simulations. I made distinction there, but you seem to be ignoring that. I referred to this game as a FPSimulation, and not a FPShooter. If you want to ignore nuances, than perhaps we should throw out all logical arguments.

In First Person Shooters the person with the single most powerful weapon, and the best aim wins, and in a First Person Simulation the person most capable of placing themselves in an advantageous position wins. Although to a layman the difference may seem insignificant the fact of the matter remains that it is very significant. In one personal reaction and twitch skill reigns supreme, but in the other tactical decision making is king.

Try again.

*facepalm* Dude. We're not talking about MWO or any other video game. At all. The OP in this thread was not referring to MWO. Every post you've made appears to be talking about creating a BV system for MWO.

What am I missing here, or how drunk do I need to get for your posts to make sense?

[Cik]

what is happening

[Halfinax]

Phalanx, on 21 November 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

Love it or hate it, Battlevalue has been a part of tabletop experience for a long time. Sunday, Herb announced at the Battlechat that he was "killing" BV. So a remnant of the "good 'ol days" will soon be gone. No word on what Herb plans for the replacement system, only that it will be replaced with SOMETHING.

Your Thoughts?

Uhhh to the guy quoted below....Who the hell is "Herb" and wth hell does thsi supposed quote have to do with a complete disassociation to BV? I see no reference to either in the actual OP.

Further more, this does not seem to suggest a complete disassociation with the previous battle value system of the game; just a reinterpretation of the system already implemented. You seem to be confusing actual argumentation with personal interpretation.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

Who the hell is "Herb"

Herbert A. Beas II, current product line developer for the Battletech TT game. In other words this is basically Word of God.

[Jaegerwolf]

http://www.sarna.net...bert_A._Beas_II

He's the line developer for the Battletech board game since 07. Halfinax the announcement only really concerns the table top game since the MWO team has not released any information regarding game balancing in terms of teams. I doubt they'd try a system like bv since they cant account for player skill, which is a major factor in all its iterations.

[Halfinax]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

Who the hell is "Herb" and wth hell does thsi supposed quote have to do with a complete disassociation to BV? I see no reference to either in the actual OP.

Further more, this does not seem to suggest a complete disassociation with the previous battle value system of the game; just a reinterpretation of the system already implemented. You seem to be confusing actual argumentation with personal interpretation.

Now respond to the rest of my post.

Mind you this guy actually had a hand in creating the BV system for the TT game, and I still haven't seen where he said anything stating a complete disassociation with the TT BV system.

Edited by Halfinax, 22 November 2011 - 09:45 PM.

[Halfinax]

Hrm I seem to have failed to realize this topic is purely about the TT boardgame. Foot in mouth color me embarassed. Sorry for the derail. I'd still appreciate a link to the statement about Herb saying BV is dead. I personally see it as the only currently balanced system for the TT (or any other version there of). How can you achieve a balance between clan tech and IS tech without BV unless you only consider tech beyond 3067?

If this really is the direction the TT game is moving then I might have to remove myself from it.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

How can you achieve a balance between clan tech and IS tech without BV unless you only consider tech beyond 3067?

Now that we're back on topic, this is the big question, isn't it?

As I said upthread, I think a basic quality indicator is more than good enough. Base it on damage output, heat balance, and speed/armor. You'd have different letter classifications to show exactly how badass a machine is.

Class E would be low-grade 3025 'Mechs (bad heat problems, poor armor per tonnage, too slow to be useful, CGR-1A Charger etc.)
Class D would be mid-range 3025 and weaker advanced 'Mechs (urbie IIC, original wolverine)
Class C would be upper-end 3025 and average advanced 'Mechs (AWS-8Q, Gargoyle Prime)
Class B would be average Clan 'Mechs and upper-end advanced IS 'Mechs (Hellbringer Prime, Cerberus)
Class A would be above-average Clan 'Mechs and the best IS machines (Timberwolf Prime, Devastator DVS-1S)
Class AA would be upper-end Clan 'Mechs (Direwolf A)
Class AAA would be the absolute monsters of Clantech, targeting computer/LPL combo with jump jets and no heat issues

[Halfinax]

CaveMan, on 22 November 2011 - 11:58 PM, said:

Now that we're back on topic, this is the big question, isn't it?

As I said upthread, I think a basic quality indicator is more than good enough. Base it on damage output, heat balance, and speed/armor. You'd have different letter classifications to show exactly how badass a machine is.

Class E would be low-grade 3025 'Mechs (bad heat problems, poor armor per tonnage, too slow to be useful, CGR-1A Charger etc.)
Class D would be mid-range 3025 and weaker advanced 'Mechs (urbie IIC, original wolverine)
Class C would be upper-end 3025 and average advanced 'Mechs (AWS-8Q, Gargoyle Prime)
Class B would be average Clan 'Mechs and upper-end advanced IS 'Mechs (Hellbringer Prime, Cerberus)
Class A would be above-average Clan 'Mechs and the best IS machines (Timberwolf Prime, Devastator DVS-1S)
Class AA would be upper-end Clan 'Mechs (Direwolf A)
Class AAA would be the absolute monsters of Clantech, targeting computer/LPL combo with jump jets and no heat issues

This is just a very rudimentary version of BV expressed as letter grades though. It fails to actually bring any level of real balance to the TT game.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 23 November 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

This is just a very rudimentary version of BV expressed as letter grades though. It fails to actually bring any level of real balance to the TT game.

What's going to bring real balance? Unless you give everyone the same 'Mechs, there are going to be inequalities.

My problem with BV is it's too numerical. Qualitatively, can you say there's a real difference between a 'Mech with 1800 BV and one with 1900 BV? Is an AS7-S meaningfully better than an AWS-9Q? It tries to make the game into a math equation, which doesn't work with battletech. There are too many random/unpredictable factors.

Please, suggest what you think ought to be done instead.

Edited by CaveMan, 23 November 2011 - 12:23 AM.

[Halfinax]

Giving the example of a less than 10% deviation from value to value isn't a valid argument against BV. BV isn't there to discern the random roll of the dice it is there to ensure that a Timber Wolf isn't considered the same as a Marauder. Both have the same tonnage, but it would be far from a fair one on one fight even with the randomness of dice thrown into the equation. The Timber Wolf is faster, has better range, better heat management, and better armor. It would be far from an equitable value. BV isn't subjective it tries to be as objective as possible.

Randomness or luck has basically nothing to do with the technological superiority of Clan Technology over Inner Sphere Technology. Your argument was what's the difference between a 1 dollar and 1 dollar and ten cents, but that's not what is at stake if BV is thrown out the window. It's what's the difference between 2,737 (Timber Wolf), and 1,363 (Marauder). A single Timber Wolf is worth (in BV quantitative value and in game play mechanics) is worth nearly two Marauders. If we throw BV out of the TT game then no one is compelled or even really wanting to play anything but clan tech load outs. If you take any sense of fair play or balance out of a game then the only person that has fun is the person with the best toys. No one has fun in that system except the person that wins because they knew best how to game the system.

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 23 November 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

Your argument was what's the difference between a 1 dollar and 1 dollar and ten cents, but that's not what is at stake if BV is thrown out the window. It's what's the difference between 2,737 (Timber Wolf), and 1,363 (Marauder). A single Timber Wolf is worth (in BV quantitative value and in game play mechanics) is worth nearly two Marauders. If we throw BV out of the TT game then no one is compelled or even really wanting to play anything but clan tech load outs.

Whoa, hang on. I'm not suggesting we throw out using a BV-type system as a concept. Where did you get that from?

My argument is that BV gets too bogged down in details which makes it unwieldy as a system not that it's a bad idea in the first place.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

BV also gets pretty skewered by things like C3 Networks and Force Size Multipliers.
20 Savannah Masters vs. 1 Atlas sees a huge BV inflation for the Savannahs.
While C3 simply costs too much BV to be worthwhile, unless you got a couple of customs designed specifically to be used in combination. And not everybody allows customs.

Anyhow, balancing has always been a bit of a problem.
C-Bills? Not very reliable.
Tonnage? Far wose than C-Bills.
Combat Value? Did a poor job as well. (Tactical Handbook, in case you're wondering)
BV1? Did a bit better than Combat Value, but no that much better.
BV2? Again, better than the previous version, but has its problems as well.
Next thingy? Will probably do better than BV2, will probably have problems of its own as well.