14 replies to this topic

[Der Zivilist]

Tabletop BattleTech has a metric to estimate the general battle value of any given 'Mech in any given configuration. It's a very complex calculation that spits out a number of three to four digits.

I've been familiarizing myself with the construction rules, and have been building a LOT of potential fits for use in MWO come August 7th, but with no way to test them before that date, I've generally relied on BV to judge my results. Now that I am confident that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the finer details of the 'Mechlab, it's time to take the next step: questioning the quality of the BV score system.

I mean, after I took a JägerMech of 901 BV and pushed it to 1761 BV without even breaking MWO's restrictive hardpoint system that doesn't exist in tabletop and with only using MWO legal components, I was kind of saying "yeah, this needs some looking into before I go on".

I'd like to hear your thoughts and experiences. What do you think about the (new, v2.0) BV system? Do you consider it a realistic representation, or is it liable to fail? Do you know any edge cases where the formula breaks? Are specific features or weapons overvalued or undervalued?

[CaveMan]

From what I've seen in Megamek, BV2 is a pretty good strength estimate and it works a lot better than BV1.

I think weapons that produce lots of damage clusters aren't assigned enough BV though. I've got a custom Dire Wolf that has 10 Streak SRM-4s and a LB-20X autocannon backed up by a large laser, and it only has 2743 BV. It's basically guaranteed to get a head or CT (critical) hit every time you fire, though, even accounting for misses. It kills pilots.

[Der Zivilist]

Hahaha. 10 Streak-4's? That's hilarious. Terrible style, but hilarous

That's probably an edge case we don't have to account for in MWO, since boating like this won't be possible due to hardpoint restrictions. Still, if multi-hit weapons are undervalued, would you say that big, heavy alpha strikers like PPCs and Gauss rifles are overvalued?

[Rogen]

I'm not sure, do not forget, taht the weapons will behave in different way in game than in tabletop, so the BV even if it is accurate in tabletop, doesn't necesary to be acurate in game.

I would wait and see.

[Der Zivilist]

I'm aware of this, of course. RoF at minimum is going to differ between weapons, meaning you'll have completely different heat/dps/ammo use profiles.

But then again, I am posting in the tabletop section, looking to discuss a tabletop-specific metric

[Tokra]

CaveMan, on 09 July 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

From what I've seen in Megamek, BV2 is a pretty good strength estimate and it works a lot better than BV1.

I think weapons that produce lots of damage clusters aren't assigned enough BV though. I've got a custom Dire Wolf that has 10 Streak SRM-4s and a LB-20X autocannon backed up by a large laser, and it only has 2743 BV. It's basically guaranteed to get a head or CT (critical) hit every time you fire, though, even accounting for misses. It kills pilots.

2743 BV is still to high for this. You will lose most of the fights. Way to less range for such a slow mech. Everyone will outrange you. Eighter you will never get in range to fire, or your mech will be this badly damage that it dont matter anymore once you are in range.

If i would see such a mech on the opponent side in a Clan fight, i would be happy about the free kill .


To the OP: The BV2 system is way better for good data about the strengh of a Mech. The BV1 had its faults. And some mechs are total overpriced while other overpowered mechs were to cheap.
BV2 still has the same problems, but way less and more rare compared to the old one.

But i doubt you can use these values so well for the MWO. The realtime factor will hit to hard. The recharge rate of the weapons, combined with the first person part (no more random rolls) will would make the BV system from the TT useless.

If you remove the 10 sec time per round, and add recharge time to weapons, some small, fast recharge weapons, will become way more powerfull. Take the MG for example. In MW4 these became really dangerous. In BT TT they are more or less pointless (unless you play with adv rules and rapid fire MG rules).

[Der Zivilist]

Tokra, on 09 July 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

BV2 still has the same problems, but way less and more rare compared to the old one.

Can you elaborate? That's exactly what I'm here for.

[Karl Streiger]

Here are some BV 2 problems:
Targeting Computer - bolster the BV of your linked weapon - this factor doesn't take into consideration if it does you any good. For example a is medium pulse laser linked to a targeting computer is still a weapon with a really short range.
Heat - if you design a mech with good brackets - for example when an alpha will generate far more heat that you can build up.
TSM - you defensive or offensive value is modified through the maximum of speed that is available. But your weapons won't work properly under such heat conditions - on the other hand your meele damage isn't used for calculating
HeadHunter Weapons: Weapons like ER-PPCs or GaussRifle got an extra BV modificator for being able to kill a enemy with a single hit.

Seeing your JaegerMech BV example let me expect that you have mounted dual gauss rifles, maximum armor and maybe some light equipment (endo steel or XL-Fusion)

[Tokra]

With every system, no matter what, you will find mechs that are cheap for their power. In general the BV2 are just higher and adjusted.
The BV1 didnt include the big bonus from the C3 system (as far as i remember). This lead to powerfull C3 combinations for low BV.


Within BV2 (from my experience) the old IS mechs are really cheap compared to clan mechs. One of the reasons is as well the pilot skill that comes into it. This lead to an extreme overweight on IS side. 3-1 ratio is not to rare. And this is with tech2 Mechs on IS side.

Same with tanks. Some of the hover are damm cheap for the bonus they add to a fight. But this was always a problem. Even with the old Combat Value (for example the Saldin for less than 600 BV or the Harasser Laser for 321 BV while a Mongoose cost 740 BV.).

And you will always find some special mechs that are cheap for their weight. Like one variant of the Cyclops (CP-10-HQ). This one cost only 1107 BV. While there are medium mechs that cost up to 1400 BV. Even the Jagermech variant with the LRM is cheap compared to some other med or heavy mechs.

Other example: the Titan cost 1959 BV: But has way to many weapons for the heat sinks. And is because of this way to expensive in BV (you can get a Steiner Banshee or Stalker for less BV).
Take the Archer for example. The standard mech cost more BV than the variants. But has more heat problems. I would not take the standard when it only comes to weight. And i would for sure not take the standard Archer when it comes to BV. Some of the variants (the K and the S) are better and cheaper in BV.


Adding to this its important to know that in the TT game ini units count a lot. As more units you can get on the field, as better it is. And if you can get a few cheap units in addition, you gain a big bonus. If you can get a nearly equal mech for a bit less BV, its help you more than a unit less on the field (as well something where you can exploit the BV system).

[Der Zivilist]

Ah, great posts, Karl and Tokra! That was very informative

And yes, that JägerMech came with dual Gauss Rifles. I looked into the BV details and noticed: these two alone, without ammo, cost as much as an entire UrbanMech! I already had a sneaking suspicion that they were overvalued for some reason, and now I know: it's because of their ability to one-shot stuff from 22 hexes away. Makes sense.

I'm not sure though if I would consider the HQ Cyclops cheap, though. It has less weapons than some 'Mechs half its weight. And just tons of armor alone won't help you much if you can't kill anything. The JM6-A, okay, I can see it being cheap... when a CPLT-C1 with almost the same weapon layout costs so much more. I wonder if the jump jets make the difference?

Edited by Der Zivilist, 09 July 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[CaveMan]

Tokra, on 09 July 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

2743 BV is still to high for this. You will lose most of the fights. Way to less range for such a slow mech. Everyone will outrange you. Eighter you will never get in range to fire, or your mech will be this badly damage that it dont matter anymore once you are in range.

Unless you're playing on some huge number of mapsheets, you just don't have enough room to stay out of range forever. On a typical 2x2 gameboard, the Dire Wolf has sufficient armor to weather 2 or 3 turns closing with other 'Mechs in its class. Light 'Mechs rarely have the ranged weaponry to do anything but run away, either. And don't forget the ER large laser, which can reach out and touch people almost 2 boards away.

It's best for close quarters, but it works better than you would think on general maps.

[SocketWrench]

The other thing to consider is that in TT, range is not just the maximum range you are able to use a weapon at. It also means that it gets more accurate at longer distances. At 7 hexes where a Gauss rifle is hitting at short range (+0) modifier, medium lasers are hitting at long range (+4) modifier. This makes longer range weapons exponentially better in a lot of senses.

It's something that is simply not accounted for in the MechWarrior games. A medium laser is just as easy to hit with as a large laser at 150m in MechWarrior but it's significantly harder to hit with the mediums then the larges in tabletop at that 5 hex (150m) range. Furthermore, BV is not designed with group-fire in mind. Though 4 medium lasers do the same damage as an Autocannon 20 at the same range, the simple fact that all 20 damage of the AC20 hits the same spot makes it a much more valuable weapon. This can be a mixed bag, mind you, but more often then not, hitting 20 damage to one location is better than hitting 5 damage to 4 locations.

[Beazle]

BV2 is much better than BV1.

One improtant thing to remember when thinking about BV matching is that it does not take into effect terrain or planetary conditions.

If one side knows what the maps are going to be before hand, and picks mechs/omni configs that suit the terrain, they will have a significant advantage.

[SiriusBeef]

I've always found that Clan ER LPL boats break the BV system. Never needed more proof than that. Made more than a few Spheriods cry as a result of using BV alone to balance a game. BV2 did not seem much better to me.

To terrain I would add scenario to the list of important aspects to be considered when looking to even the scales. Mechs that are useless in a pitched battle on a wide open tundra could be very useful on a scouting mission or raid in the city.

[Beazle]

SiriusBeef, on 18 July 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

I've always found that Clan ER LPL boats break the BV system. Never needed more proof than that. Made more than a few Spheriods cry as a result of using BV alone to balance a game. BV2 did not seem much better to me.

To terrain I would add scenario to the list of important aspects to be considered when looking to even the scales. Mechs that are useless in a pitched battle on a wide open tundra could be very useful on a scouting mission or raid in the city.

Two good points there. I have not done many Clan matches based on BV2, but i remember the misery of Clan LPLs in BV1.