86 replies to this topic

[UncleKulikov]

Basically you would need both. There is a max player count, 12 per team. And within that, there could be a BV total split among the players. Now either players set their mech before entering matchmaking, or can select once they are in a room with other players.

[Zenehre]

Ok so lets lay this out. There is an unlock system going to be in game correct? So a person with "Generic 60-ton mech" who has been playing that "generic 60-ton mech" for several weeks, is going to have a better version of "generic 60-ton mech" than somebody who just unlocked it correct? If this is the case, then it is imperative that we have a system that takes more into consideration than just tonnage. However, if as soon as you unlock "generic 60-ton mech" you have access to all the equipment to customize it with, then there is no need to work with more than jsut tonnage, since differences are all player choice at that point.

Edited by Zenehre, 04 January 2012 - 11:10 PM.

[verybad]

BV is being revised in battletech and it wouldn't be an overly effective messure unit as information warfare looks to be a more battle affecting system in MWO than it is in battletech.

Scouts don't get very high BV in battletech for example, but they look to be mroe effective in MWO given the information we now have.

[Kudzu]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Kudzu, refrain from the personal attacks, you've already removed all doubt..next I hit the Report button.

Stating facts is not a personal attack.

Quote

And what 5 mixed weight Clan Mechs will equal the BV of 8-12 IS Mechs? I don't consider 3Lights and 2 Mediums going up against 8-12 Heavys and Assaults a good match..you do? Have you bothered to look at the actual BVs listed for IS Mechs of the appropiate time?

Using BV2 and units from TRO:3025 and TRO 3050:
3/4 Dire Wolf Prime
3/4 Timber Wolf A
3/4 Mad Dog Prime
3/4 Shadow Cat Prime
3/4 Adder B
BV: 15863
vs
Lance A
4/5 AS7-D Atlas
4/5 ON1-M Orion
4/5 VND-1R Vindicator
4/5 RVN-3L Raven
Lance B
4/5 DVS-2 Devastator
4/5 STK-5M Stalker
4/5 HBK-4G Hunchback
4/5 JR7-D Jenner
Lance C
4/5 CPLT-C1 Catapult
4/5 DRG-1N Dragon
4/5 CN9-D Centurion
4/5 PNT-9R Panther
BV: 15602

If the Clans use 4/5 Pilots you drop lance C and the BV's become
Clan: 11495
IS: 11179
In both cases the BV spread is within about 2.5% or so, most campaigns run with anywhere under a 7% spread as acceptable. Either way, you have a good mix of units on both sides, and that's with me only picking from stuff that has either been mentioned, are past staples, and are not unseen. Obviously the TT BV values would be different from a BV system designed expressly for MW:O, but it can be done.

Quote

Obviously not, because I'm not joking or making assumptions about an Adder and an Atlas being a BV match, it actually gives the Adder the advantage. Seriously, some of you need to actually LOOK at the BV numbers for IS Mechs of 3049 and compare them to Clan Mechs, see just how great the disparity really is. FASA totally screwed the pooch when they dropped the Clans into BTech, there was no thought to balance, no thought to how badly the Clans overpowered the IS.

See above.

Quote

You say 'redo the BV system to fit MWO'..ok..so we do that..guess what happens to the BV..the SAME disparity shows up because the Clans ARE that overpowered compared to the IS, that is a simple cold hard fact that no one can deny. You fail to acknowledge this, even after it's pointed out, 'just use a system redesigned for MWO'..seriously?

See above.

Quote

Avatar skills are going to make you more efficient in battle, they won't make you BETTER at playing the game, big difference there. Again, PGI has made it clear, if you don't have the actual player skills, the avatar skills won't compensate for that lack. If you can't hit a target with an unscoped rifle, putting a scope on it won't make you hit the target.

Information is going to be a key aspect of gameplay, as noted by this months dev blog, modules that give you more and better info, and that reduce or misdirect the info of your enemy will be powerful. If you are cruising around in the city in your Jenner hunting what you think is a Commando, but when you turn the corner you find out is an Atlas that was spoofing your detection gear... you'll change your tune.

Quote

We're getting 12 v 12 combat, at least that's the plan currently, actual testing will show if the system can handle that, if not, then 8 v 8. For Clan vs IS, that'll be 10 v 12 according to PGI, Star vs Company, which is actually highly favorable for the Clans..but oh well, that's where player skill takes over for the tech issues, you got it or you don't, and we'll know before the Clans hit who has it and who doesn't. Tonnage works for these amounts of players, lets you get full teams on both sides. Going BV..are you kidding? 2 Stars vs a Company..3050 IS Tech? 10 Clan Lights vs 12 IS Heavys and Assaults...cause that IS what the BV's will put you in, even IF you modify BV to fit MWO, because the Clan Tech disparity is just that damn big. And that's assuming you actually put all 10 Clan players in motion..if you don't, cut them down to 5, you could go with some Mediums and Lights! But you also just kicked 5 players out of the game..that's not a good idea. Or had you not thought of that either?

See above. I can rework it into a binary vs company if you still need more proof.

[Rathverge]

Hrmm so basically in WoT terms:
Company Battles

and

Standard Battles

... They use both and it works great with both systems.....

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Kristov, I think I can see what your saying. Effectively the use of a BV system will tend to limit the Clan to light mechs only due to the vastly superior tech. You have also made it clear that pilot skill (which is paramount in this type of game) can not be effectively measured by any means (which can't be manipulated) which have been used so far.
For the first year year it will be IS only, but even there, the mechs will not be equal. those who have been playing longer will tend to have "customised" their mechs. This would still favour using BV of some sort rather than straight tonnage, as far as I can see. The pilot skill, which you have made clear can't be properly quantified therefore has to be ignored. After all the whole point of PvP is that the "best" pilot's win.
We are assuming that this game will take off and have large numbers playing, many of whom have not controlled anything like a mech before. A number of the people on this board, you included, will probably be in the top 1% of the players. I am only an average pilot, but am a team player with a resonable grasp of tactics. Yes I like to win but I also want fun out of this.
The "Alpha" players will always want to win and have stated, fairly, that any (legal) tactic is valid to win. If the game takes off as expected then the traditional player base will be greatly diluted and us average players will be unlucky to come up against teams with top players in. I will be playing as a merc and I very much doubt that our CO will take any contract against a unit that contains the "good" players. It just stacks the percentages against us from the start and that isn't how mercs survive. A cold fact of life is that if a merc company wants to survive and profit in this sort of game, their best tactic, unless there is some form of pilot raning system is to be noob killers -limit damage to maximise profit.
As for the Clans - a high percentage of the people on this forum have already indicated that this is the way they want to go. Most of them are likely to be better than average pilots. If they follow lore and you have to go through a Trial of Possession to be a Clan member etc then this will tend to select out the best pilots. There needs to be some way of keeping the number of the Clans down as the IS traditional advantages are greater numbers and better supply lines.
It has been shown just how seriously the Clan mechs outperform the IS. So most people would consider that a "fair" matching system would take account of this, pilot skills being excluded. As one of the top players you no doubt will be able to deal with this. What I would like to know, as I will be playing IS, is why I would want to play against the Clans at all, given that I will be not only outgunned but out piloted?
Those of us who are not top pilots will have no interest in being roflstomped every time we play, it's not fun. This game needs to be fun for the majority of those who play or it will go the way of MW4 multiplayer, a small niche game which won't remain viable. As a merc I would suggest to my CO that we stay well away from the battle lines and make our living elsewhere. Where we hopefully will have a chance of some wins.
Can you explain to me why most people, other than the elite would want to play IS when the Clan's arrive? Because I must be being even more obtuse than usual, as I just can't see it.
PS; Apologies for the wall of text

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 05 January 2012 - 01:17 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Dlardregeth, we DO know that we'll be able to play as Clan, that was said in the 3 Step podcast, they are even looking to passively enforce the Clan's honor system, Zellbringen, by rewarding those Clan players who follow it and not rewarding those who don't. So it's not speculation, it's a given, we WILL be able to play as Clan and use Clan Mechs/Tech.
[...]

Okay, I'll take your word for it then. Didn't happen to catch the podcast and our thread in this forum with the compilation of confirmed info only states:

Quote

[...]
therefore, the Clans will not make an appearance until roughly a year after the game's initial launch, in 2013.[...]

And "make an appearance" could mean quite a few different things.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Dlardraegeth, 3 Step podcast http://mwomercs.com/...ee-moves-ahead/ link is in the first post in the thread, enjoy, rally good info in taht thing..not just on MWO either.

[MaddMaxx]

If we take the Catapult as an example, one can have a Cat @ 1165BV

Quote

" Model CPLT-C1 Class Heavy Cost 5,790,125 C-bills Technical specifications Mass 65 tons Chassis Hollis Mark II Armor 10 tons of Durallex Heavy Engine Magna 260 Speed 64.8 km/h Jump Jets Anderson Propulsion 21 Armament

• 2xLRM-15s
  
• 4xMedium Lasers

BV (1.0) 1,165^[1]

and then the same Cat @ 1500BV (1.0)

Quote

"CPLT-K2K - An upgrade to the K2 Catapult, the K2K model upgrades the engine to an extralight model. The twin PPCs have also been upgraded to two ER PPCs. The 'Mech also carries two ER Medium Lasers for close range firepower. To handle the added heat from the upgrades, the 'Mech uses 20 double heat sinks. Finally, the K2K model carries thirteen and a half tons of armor. BV (1.0) = 1,500"

from 1052 BV

Quote

CPLT-K2 - Breaking the mold of the Catapult, the K2 model removes the LRM-15 launchers and replaces them with two PPCs which allow the Catapult to act as a direct fire support 'Mech and take a more active role in front line combat. The 'Mech has additional single heat sinks to help dissipate the added heat from the PPCs. The K2 also has two Machine Guns to deter infantry attacks. BV (1.0) = 1,052"

Which Cat is better when looked at by a MM program? Why is the 1500BV noted as better (bigger BV is considered better right) when every change for the better is offset by another related negative. (XL engine, Dbl HS's to offset ER weapons etc.)

They are all good at what they do. The one constant is they are all 65T Battlemechs. And if we do/can not include Pilot Skill because it can be smurfed/spoofed whatever, then setting Drop limits via Weight Maximums leaves the Lance configurations up to the Teams/Commanders were it should be.

I am not sure another tweaked BV system is worth the Devs time. There are already 2...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 05 January 2012 - 09:58 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Nik, welcome to the wonderful world of online team based PvP-centric games. Much like other PvP games, being good has it's rewards, and the best are like gods compared to the masses. Doesn't stop those games from being rather large chunks of the market though, because SKILL is the determining factor in who's a god and who's a victim, so anyone and everyone has the chance to become a god.

Does it mean you have to spend real time playing the game, practicing and learning how to be a god? Yes, yes it does. So those folks who can't spend more then a few hours a week will take longer to become gods then those who can spend 6+ hours a day, usually..not always though. Some people just HAVE that special something that lets them become gods the moment they start the game, so it really doesn't matter if they play 2 hours a week or 40 hours a week. Others can spend 40 hours a week and still be horrible at the game, they just don't have the skill sets required, that's life, not everyone can do everything. I've gamed with guys in MW games, Tribes, and the BF games, who after years of playing many hours a DAY, were absolutely horrible. They still played them every day for hours, because they loved the games, didn't matter how bad they were, and they KNEW how bad they were, but they had a blast getting their ***** handed to them anyway. I really enjoy playing with people like that, they have FUN, it ain't all about the win or how many kills they got..it's just about having fun.

Me, I personally expect to see lots of no skilled victims in MWO, from the day it launches(most of us will be those victims, me included!) until the day it closes down, the mass of the player base will fit that catagory..no skill, sucks at the game, but has a blast playing the game for FUN! Just like I see in games like AoC, DDO, WoW, and so many other games..full of people who ain't good, ain't even mediocre, but they have fun just playing the game.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I'm looking forward to it - for me it's a good day every time my mech leaves the field on two legs

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 05 January 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Which Cat is better when looked at by a MM program? Why is the 1500BV noted as better (bigger BV is considered better right) when every change for the better is offset by another related negative. (XL engine, Dbl HS's to offset ER weapons etc.)

The K2 is a 3025 mech, it has 2 PPC's, 2 medium lasers, and 2 MG's. The K2K is is a Dark Age mech that has a similar load-out (2 ERPPC's, 2 ER medium lasers) but is better across the board-- it's faster (5/8/4 rather than 4/6/0, meaning that it can walk and get a +2 to hit mod or run forward to get a +3 to hit mod, the K2 gets a +1 and +2 mod respectively), it's weapons have longer range and no minimum range, it adds the jump jets that the K2 dropped, it does not carry ammo, it has a better heat curve (can fire all of it's weapons, run, and only build up 2 heat per turn, if the K2 fires all of it's weapons and runs it builds up 8 heat per turn). I would say that that is a better mech overall, as shown by the increased BV.

While the XL engine can be a negative, DHS are only negatives to crit space (not a problem in this design) and to BV cost.

Quote

They are all good at what they do. The one constant is they are all 65T Battlemechs. And if we do/can not include Pilot Skill because it can be smurfed/spoofed whatever, then setting Drop limits via Weight Maximums leaves the Lance configurations up to the Teams/Commanders were it should be.

BV also leaves the lance configs up to the leaders, it is just a more accurate (note that I did not say perfect) way to measure effectiveness.

Quote

I am not sure another tweaked BV system is worth the Devs time. There are already 2...

We won't know for sure until it's tried, will we? There's a reason the TT started using different systems to balance games rather than rely on tonnage.

[Ulric Kell]

This thread went bonkers since a day or two ago. There's a lot of good points both around BV and tonnage but every system seems to have a crack in it's armor.

In the end we're limited technologically on what can be rendered reliably and quickly. So player limits of 12 per side max makes sense. I also think depending on the board player limits make sense too. An Urban city that's small shouldn't have a 12v12 in it. That would be like bumper cars.

BV is cool because not all mechs were created equal. Tonnage is cool because most people understand it and when comparing mechs in the same "era" it's moderately equal.

In the end you could use some form of BV coupled with Pilot skill or you could use tonnage and lock in specific era's of mechs and then as the years go on older mech models phase out and newer ones phase in.

If you "had" to put a number on pilot skill your best bet would be to create a complex equation that increments based on the things a pilot has done. If Pilot X has 35 headshots against 70 mechs that pilot should get a 1.5 multiplier. If pilot Y has 10 headshots against 70 mechs they should get a 1.1 multiplier. Pilot skill should in NO WAY be based on rank and level but instead on empirical data gathered from the battles that pilot has fought. So all pilots start with a multiplier of 1 but as you pad your stats (Kills/Head shots/Skill shots/etc.) your multiplier should rise and fall.

[BlindProphet]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Dlardregeth, we DO know that we'll be able to play as Clan, that was said in the 3 Step podcast, they are even looking to passively enforce the Clan's honor system, Zellbringen, by rewarding those Clan players who follow it and not rewarding those who don't. So it's not speculation, it's a given, we WILL be able to play as Clan and use Clan Mechs/Tech. And using BV, anyone on the Clan side will be fielding Light Mechs against Heavy and Assault IS Mechs, that's what the BV system enforces.

Kudzu, refrain from the personal attacks, you've already removed all doubt..next I hit the Report button. And what 5 mixed weight Clan Mechs will equal the BV of 8-12 IS Mechs? I don't consider 3Lights and 2 Mediums going up against 8-12 Heavys and Assaults a good match..you do? Have you bothered to look at the actual BVs listed for IS Mechs of the appropiate time? Obviously not, because I'm not joking or making assumptions about an Adder and an Atlas being a BV match, it actually gives the Adder the advantage. Seriously, some of you need to actually LOOK at the BV numbers for IS Mechs of 3049 and compare them to Clan Mechs, see just how great the disparity really is. FASA totally screwed the pooch when they dropped the Clans into BTech, there was no thought to balance, no thought to how badly the Clans overpowered the IS.

You say 'redo the BV system to fit MWO'..ok..so we do that..guess what happens to the BV..the SAME disparity shows up because the Clans ARE that overpowered compared to the IS, that is a simple cold hard fact that no one can deny. You fail to acknowledge this, even after it's pointed out, 'just use a system redesigned for MWO'..seriously?

Avatar skills are going to make you more efficient in battle, they won't make you BETTER at playing the game, big difference there. Again, PGI has made it clear, if you don't have the actual player skills, the avatar skills won't compensate for that lack. If you can't hit a target with an unscoped rifle, putting a scope on it won't make you hit the target.

We're getting 12 v 12 combat, at least that's the plan currently, actual testing will show if the system can handle that, if not, then 8 v 8. For Clan vs IS, that'll be 10 v 12 according to PGI, Star vs Company, which is actually highly favorable for the Clans..but oh well, that's where player skill takes over for the tech issues, you got it or you don't, and we'll know before the Clans hit who has it and who doesn't. Tonnage works for these amounts of players, lets you get full teams on both sides. Going BV..are you kidding? 2 Stars vs a Company..3050 IS Tech? 10 Clan Lights vs 12 IS Heavys and Assaults...cause that IS what the BV's will put you in, even IF you modify BV to fit MWO, because the Clan Tech disparity is just that damn big. And that's assuming you actually put all 10 Clan players in motion..if you don't, cut them down to 5, you could go with some Mediums and Lights! But you also just kicked 5 players out of the game..that's not a good idea. Or had you not thought of that either?

I've read all your arguments...Every last one even though they hurt to read. And they hurt to read as you've yet to say anything resembling a well put together argument. At best your arguments boil down to "The TT bv system doesn't take into account player skill so tonnage is what should be used". Except Tonnage doesn't take into account player skill. Hell BV never took into account player skill in the TT. I've seen assault mechs torn apart by savanah masters within a couple of turns because they knew how to use them. BV vs BV, and tonnage vs tonnage the savanah master (who solo killed it) shouldn't have won. Guess what...player skill comes into effect on the table top too.

Neither BV or Tonnage is a perfect solution. Tonnage is by far the worst because it allows for the worst match ups.

Is TT BV the right thing to go with then? No. But no ones suggested that. Kudzu suggested *gasp* a new version of BV tailored for the game. And guess what thats the smart thing to do. Yup avatar skills aren't going to compensate for lack of player skill. But thats not to say avatar skills are worthless. They need to be factored in. Player skill can also be factored in... perhaps not perfectly...but the more games you play the more data gets collected...the more accurately you can model it.

[Kristov Kerensky]

There's actually more then 2 BV systems currently, the latest polish to the BV2 system is still in the works, and BV is based on the old CV system which had multiple versions as well. Reason why BV is once again being revamped...the people doing it can't agree on what should be given what values because they don't see balance the same way. It'll continue for some time I expect, since every time new toys get added, those BV values get looked at again and someone figures..'hey, this ain't fair!' and they start all over again. Hell, you can't even get people to agree on WHICH BV system to use, 1 or 2..and they are working on a revamp of 2 atm..so...yeah.

Why did CV and then BV come into being in the first place? Simple, people wanted to force others to play by their version of 'balance'. 300 tons per lance..that's not balanced! No, give each piece of gear a numerical value and then you can calculate exactly what a Mech's force value is, THAT is balance! Only there's big some big flaws with that since day...and that's player skills(mental in TT) and the random factor introduced by rolling dice. As blindprophet so clearly pointed out with his own experience, it's not useful in figuring out anything. Anyone who's played TT will have similar stories, it happens all the time, BV doesn't do jack to make things balanced.

[BlindProphet]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 January 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

There's actually more then 2 BV systems currently, the latest polish to the BV2 system is still in the works, and BV is based on the old CV system which had multiple versions as well. Reason why BV is once again being revamped...the people doing it can't agree on what should be given what values because they don't see balance the same way. It'll continue for some time I expect, since every time new toys get added, those BV values get looked at again and someone figures..'hey, this ain't fair!' and they start all over again. Hell, you can't even get people to agree on WHICH BV system to use, 1 or 2..and they are working on a revamp of 2 atm..so...yeah.

Why did CV and then BV come into being in the first place? Simple, people wanted to force others to play by their version of 'balance'. 300 tons per lance..that's not balanced! No, give each piece of gear a numerical value and then you can calculate exactly what a Mech's force value is, THAT is balance! Only there's big some big flaws with that since day...and that's player skills(mental in TT) and the random factor introduced by rolling dice. As blindprophet so clearly pointed out with his own experience, it's not useful in figuring out anything. Anyone who's played TT will have similar stories, it happens all the time, BV doesn't do jack to make things balanced.

BV is not ballanced you are correct. No version of BV has properly worked. BUT its soooo much better than straight up tonnage theres no comparison. BV in TT can only go so far...it can't actually be affected by player skill (the value that is) whereas a custom bv based off actual weapon and mech balance numbers could be affected by player skill via the large amount of data one could gather from games played. Would said approximation of skill be perfect, no, but it'd be something. Something light years beyond tonnage in making even teams.

[Extraho]

Wow, so much arguments and running around in circles....

Tonnage, BV.... something about a duel system? dono where that came from but what ever, was amusing enough.

So far everyone keeps ignoring the one simple fact.... PLAYER EXPERIENCE/SKILL WILL NOT!!!! BE A FACTOR IN BALENCING!!!!

Seriously, everybody's arguments seem to revolve around "he's played longer than me/is a higher rank than me, so i should get an advantage".... people... thats what we call QQ'ing.... stop it... or you get the nub-stick.

So.... now that we know the actual player (and possibly the toon) experience will not be a factor, BV looses its apparent advantage over tonnage and they basically become two methods of similar advantage which do pritty much the same thing.... just in different ways.

BV - Takes into account the mech, tech, modules and other such fittings, assigning a arbitrary number which can be added to the other arbitrary numbers of the other mechs in a lance then subtracted from the max limit to preform basic mech balancing.... correct? yes.... good.

(i use the term arbitrary due to the FAQ saying there will be modifications available, but as of yet its not been announced as to what can be modified... making the numbers BV supplies currently "arbitrary").

Tonnage - Adds the total weight of each mech in the lance together and subtracts it from the max limit... simple enough.

Now as for the QQing about balancing... if total weapon customization is available...

BV - will provide the most relative accurate balancing. Relative being the operative word, due to the "i have 4 gus rifles, my BV is awesome" v's "i have a pair of long tom's, mines better" coming into play. BV score doesint take into account the piolets stupidity and weapon idiocy, its quite easy to get a higher BV score on a mech that's relatively useless and will be no match for anything that moves faster than a Atlas loaded with nothing but armour and 1 mg moving at half speed (really is the perfect anti-long tom-only mech lol... highly amusing too... and yes i have seen it done... both the long tom only and the Atlas lol)

Tonnage - Ignores the mech weapon and equipment load-out... still simple...

here, if you want an excuse as to why you lost, and love to cry about how unbalanced a match was, go for BV, it'l suit you perficlty.

If on the other hand, you dont care what equipment you're opponent is using, go with Tonnage.... much easyer.

Also look at the disadvantages of BV v Tonnage if full customization is alowed. with BV, you will have to manage you're weapons, equipment and Mech type for you're whole lance to fit within the max BV limmit. This can be a huge pain in the posterior, especially when you're mechs are perfectly built for there roles but still come in over limit.... do you drop some armour? make you're self less effective? it becomes more and more complex and annoying as you get into bigger and more important matches.

Where as with Tonnage, as long as you're mechs come in under the limmit, what there equipped with is you're own problem. also making it you're own fault if you lose.

So BV is better suited to keep QQ'ers happy with something to blame... and is possibly a little more effective at keeping opposing fire-power closer to even

Tonnage is better for people who really dont care what there up against and prefer to use skill over crying to win.


Also keep in mind the concept of... someone has to actually code this.... do YOU want to be the one who has to write the code for a BV system that keeps everything relatively balanced? i sure as hell wouldn't lol


So, still ignoring Player and Toon's, focusing only on the Mech's, id still prefer tonnage... it keeps the balance enough that you have the exact same limmits.... but allows for a wider variation in problems on the battlefield. I personally prefer a game where my scout lance can run into an assault mech and be compleatly out matched, makes the game MUCH more interesting.

Also keep in mind that by the looks of things, how you use information warfare and overall team work will be the deciding factor in matches (in an urban enviroment, a scout lance using effective information warefare can completely out match an assault lance... possibility and opinion... before anyone flames me >.>)


Anyway, this is all just my point of view, i just dont see why people are getting pissy over what balancing method is used.... we all have out own preferances, no excuse to argue.... to me they're both just as good as eachother.... i just prefer simplicity.

[Dayuhan]

I think this could be part of the Information Warfare aspect of the game. A unit finds a contract up for bid that says the mission location is defended by a Green,Regular, Veteran, Elite unit with a 'mech composition of x assaults, x heavies, x mediums, and x lights. Depending on your skill level in IW you might glean additional information on the defending force. With this information you then decide what resources you are allocating for the mission (yes, this is very similar to the Clan bidding system). If it is a defense contract then you are deciding what resources you are allocating to defend your objective against the attackers. If you toss everything you have into it then you stand the chance of losing everything if the attacking force is superior to yours, if you only allocate a portion of your resources then you stand the chance of losing the objective.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"it's faster (5/8/4 rather than 4/6/0, meaning that it can walk and get a +2 to hit mod or run forward to get a +3 to hit mod, the K2 gets a +1 and +2 mod respectively), it's weapons have longer range and no minimum range, it adds the jump jets that the K2 dropped"

And then you Roll the Dice. I thought we were going to be playing a Computer game (without Dices).

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 05 January 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

And then you Roll the Dice. I thought we were going to be playing a Computer game (without Dices).

You asked why it was different, so I told you why it was valued higher for the TT due to the calculations of measurements important to the TT. Not a hard concept.

I have also said, repeatedly, that PGI should use their own version with calculations based upon what will be important to this game since a direct translation of BV2 would be taking into account things that won't matter and won't be taking things that do. My use of the TT BV numbers as examples are to give you a basic idea of the results of that similar system might look like.