73 replies to this topic

[Rohan Pony]

I'm pretty sure that Herbert means that he is working on a newer, simpler point value system to replace Battle Value. Now that the Master Unit List has been implemented, it will be easy for players to go online to look up the point value of a given unit from any part of the vast Battletech universe.

[The1WithTheGun]

Yeah - force-builing-by-tonnage NEVER worked. Look at the original Banshee - 95 tons but outgunned by some mechs half it's mass. Even using C-Bill cost is better than tonnage.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with - 'cause BV2 was way too complicated.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

Even using C-Bill cost is better than tonnage.

Not really, since the two biggests costs on a 'Mech are the Engine and the Gyro.
Especially with advanced engines in existance.

I made me a super-heavy once, at 180 tons.
The XXL engine itself costs about 5/6th to 5/7th of the total 'Mechs cost.

[StoneRhino]

Ignoring the whole segment caused by the guy that does not have a clue as to who Herb is..and the odd attempt at talking about the table top game in an fps sort of way, or vice versa....

...kinda proves that there needs to be a stronger advertising connection between Battletech and Mechwarrior...


It is rather strange to have bothered with the extremely slow moving Master BV list only to kill the thing in under a year. Not only that but I want a refund on my book that I bought just so I could make my own mechs, which was pointless since it was all about bv2, which was the only real difference between it and say the construction section found in previous versions of the BT rules books before TW. Seems like a sucker punch.

What Herb needs to do is either focus on fixing the idiotic IS pulse lasers.

Tonnage is the worst way of setting up games. Spent a few years playing that way and when you prefer IS over clans, you are always going to be at a disadvantage, especially if you don't care for c3. It really does start to boil down the list of mechs that people will use just because they want to use designs that are going to try and negate the clan advantage when playing with tonnage. That just leads to people using nothing but assault mechs, which is boring.

What really hurt bv2 was the unit modifier. Sure, there needs to be a way to check those that want to pick 100s of platoons of infantry, just as much as there is a need to make clanners pay for their gear, but it could be fixed by making the unit modifier a bit more complex to account for the type of unit being used since having 1 more platoon of infantry then the other guy should never equal the other guy getting enough bv to upgrade anything to a higher class.

The new system, whatever it is going to be is either going to be even more complex the bv2, meaning the master point value list is going to take 5 years before someone starts one, and another 3 before it actually finishes, which will be months before Herb decides the new system sucks and must die. If the system is to simple, then we are going to lose a lot for the simplification. Either a clan ER med laser is going to be equal to a IS ER med laser, or the clans are going to end up paying a much heavier price for their gear. BV2 seemed pretty damn good. A new system needs to be released with a master list for every variant and every item.

[Leitwolf]

These are great News! DIE BV DIE!!! :-)

[Nebfer]

Herb has mentioned that the new system needs to adress... to quote

Quote

This is where we have to set a standard by which a unit's battlefield effectiveness can be broadly estimated based on its most common and applicable combat factors, which are:
* Toughness (How well can its armor and structure hold up under enemy fire)
* Mobility (How fast can the unit maneuver; how well can it evade enemy fire)
* Firepower (How much damage can it effectively inflict on enemy units)
* Reach (How far can it project that damage)

He has also dismissed a tonnage based system, and has hinted that it's likely that it might take a few ques from the battleforce / quick strike systems.

Though you know it's also a bit clunky when your basic lance on lance game can easily range from 6,000 to 45,000+ "points".

[The1WithTheGun]

Looks interesting. And yeah - I hope they can clean up the current rating system. Was going over BV2.0 in the Techmanual the other day, and it's not very clear, and probably over-complicated. They could at least do a better job explaining it.

[GI Journalist]

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.

I never liked BattleValue, but I recognized how some players wanted an "even" match, which has never been my thing. Herb is the man for nuking everything in BattleTech that doesn't seem to fit, and replacing it with something better. This is a gutsy move and one that is necessary for a game that has been stuck in the dark ages.

[ice trey]

This had better be a joke.

I mean, I see two problems with this.

One, the team that worked on that BV list just barely finished the first batch, and it was barely ever completed.
Second, How in the hell is he going to keep a cap on powergaming and min-maxers without a decent points system? I mean, there were problems with the system, that much was made clear when I tried making a C3 Company, but it's a far stretch better than any other system we'd been using up until now.

Tonnage is just downright stupid once you get past 3025, and it still pretty stupid, anyhow. How can you justify a 1A1 Charger being worth as much as an Awesome?

I sincerely hope this means that he's going to be releasing BV3, but it seems a waste to have done so now that he's already gone and done all this catalyst rebranding of the TROs

Edited by ice trey, 28 November 2011 - 03:30 AM.

[Nebfer]

ice trey, on 28 November 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

This had better be a joke.

I mean, I see two problems with this.

One, the team that worked on that BV list just barely finished the first batch, and it was barely ever completed.
Second, How in the hell is he going to keep a cap on powergaming and min-maxers without a decent points system? I mean, there were problems with the system, that much was made clear when I tried making a C3 Company, but it's a far stretch better than any other system we'd been using up until now.

Tonnage is just downright stupid once you get past 3025, and it still pretty stupid, anyhow. How can you justify a 1A1 Charger being worth as much as an Awesome?

I sincerely hope this means that he's going to be releasing BV3, but it seems a waste to have done so now that he's already gone and done all this catalyst rebranding of the TROs

It is not a Joke, Herb wants to get rid of it, according to him (Herb) it's costing them money as BV2 is just to clunky to calculate quickly and thus delaying the release of products. And even the current unit generators is not accurate enough to do the job reliably...
It's unknown as to what is going to replace it, but herb mentioned it's not going to be tonnage based.

[Volume]

Alright, well... Here's what I've seen in this thread:

1: BV is not a good measurement to balance by.
2: BV2 is not a good measurement to balance by.
3: Tonnage is not a good measurement to balance by.
4: C-Bill cost is not a good measurement to balance by.

I don't really see any alternatives, but I hope they come up with something better than BV/Tonnage. I don't mind them getting rid of the BV system since I never really thought it reflected strength correctly, but that said, nothing else really does.

[Paladin1]

ice trey, on 28 November 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

This had better be a joke.

I mean, I see two problems with this.

One, the team that worked on that BV list just barely finished the first batch, and it was barely ever completed.
Second, How in the hell is he going to keep a cap on powergaming and min-maxers without a decent points system? I mean, there were problems with the system, that much was made clear when I tried making a C3 Company, but it's a far stretch better than any other system we'd been using up until now.

Tonnage is just downright stupid once you get past 3025, and it still pretty stupid, anyhow. How can you justify a 1A1 Charger being worth as much as an Awesome?

I sincerely hope this means that he's going to be releasing BV3, but it seems a waste to have done so now that he's already gone and done all this catalyst rebranding of the TROs

No joke Ice, I was in the chat when Herb announced this. BV2 is going to be scrapped and Herb is looking at throwing everything at his disposal into getting a replacement system in place. I honestly don't know what to make out of the news beyond what was said though. BV1/BV2 both had their shortcomings but they did a good job of balancing forces, and did a much better job of it than the earlier methods did like CV, C-Bills or Tonnage. I guess it's time to just wait and see.

[Riffan Pryde]

Honestly, my group never used BV...i viewed as a pain in the *** number that meant nothing. We used cash. Do a quick game?...spend 40 million, see what you get for the cost. A long term campaign?...use the salvaging rules and use the cost of repair kits and replacement parts.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

4: C-Bill cost is not a good measurement to balance by.

Well, the Engine+Gyro typically take up over 50% of the C-Bill cost.
Especially so with LFE, XLFE and XXLE.
In case of the XXLE, you can easily say that the engine alone is 80% of the 'Mechs total cost.
A crude example being my 180-ton super-heavy 'mech.
Total cost: ~320.000.000 C-Bills.
Engine cost: ~270.000.000 C-Bills.

[Alex Wolfe]

Kudzu, on 22 November 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

Oh, that brings back some memories. "Ok, we each have 250 tons: You get a Charger, A Rifleman, and two Shadowhawks, I get a Dire Wolf and two Timber Wolves."

Indeed, despite what conventional physics says, no two tons are created equal.

[ice trey]

Personally, I liked BV. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but it was the best option available.

Even though I am a C3 networking user, myself, I am very nervous about this change. Even C3 was tolerable granted that you did not overdo it and kept your networks limited to no more than 4 units.

...but doing away with the system outright just feels odd to me. We've spent so long just trying to finish that online MUL, and now it feels like it's all gone to waste.

I'm fine with it so long as we get a new sort of points system, but "Balancing by tonnage" has been a horrible way of doing things since the advent of the clans, and relying on it has been the reason why there have been so many oldguard that claim that anything up to and including the clans is garbage. We can't fall back on Tonnage in the age of Gauss Rifles and PPC Capacitors.

If Herb wants to use a more simplified system, I'm alright with that, but I don't trust other players in a pickup game - or sometimes, even gaming groups - to not munchkin and powergame. Battle-value acted as a way to limit munchkinning ("Four atlases versus four Daishis. This is fair - see the tonnage" is something I never want to have to hear in my lifetime) and make reasonably balanced forces. So long as what takes the place of BV does the same thing, but does it better than BV2, than I'm fine with it.

[Russian]

Damn.. so hard to read in english... )))

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

Even though I am a C3 networking user, myself, I am very nervous about this change. Even C3 was tolerable granted that you did not overdo it and kept your networks limited to no more than 4 units.

Except that the BV inflation is rather wonky, since you'll have around 20% less BV to spend on 'mechs than your opponents simply because you use C3.
5.000 BV match:
Opponent: 4 'mechs at an average of 1.250 BV each.
You: 4 'mechs at an average of 1.000 BV each + 1.000 BV for the C3 network.
Now, your opponent could mount 4 Guardian ECM Suites for ~100BV/piece to mostly negate your entire C3 network, since the best you'll get is medium-range.

Quote

Damn.. so hard to read in english... )))

Deal with it.
Non-english languages aren't allowed.

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 02 December 2011 - 06:39 AM.

[Xhaleon]

I think that the subtractions in calculating BV were too small to matter. Each slot of unCASE'd explosive ammo is worth just -15 BV? Most mechs are many hundreds of BV, and more modern ones easily top 1500+. What's the difference? Lots of ammo might make a dent, but then it's now really a walking time bomb. And when they are protected by CASE and not put in a stupid location like the CT, they deduct nothing, even though they still obliterate the torso section and heavily injure the pilot.

Yeah, I hate ammo explosions.

[CaveMan]

You know, given that tonnage works decently well as a balancer in pure-3025 fights, maybe what's needed is a sort of "effective tonnage" system that adjusts tonnage based on what the 'Mech is able to do with its tons.

Define a yardstick 'Mech, say a 3025 Atlas as 100 effective tons based on armor, firepower, range, and heat dissipation, with adjustments for speed. In other words for a given tonnage, a certain balance of damage output, staying power, and mobility is expected. 'Mechs that are disproportionately powerful for their tonnage are treated as though they were heavier, 'Mechs that are weak for their tonnage are treated as though they were lighter.

The 3025 Charger, for example might be treated as 50 effective tons because of its weak armor and lack of firepower. An Adder Prime, which is easily capable of dispatching most 3025 IS heavy 'Mechs, might clock in as an effective 70 tons.