Cheapbuzz
07/12/02 07:53 PM
165.76.24.155
|
This is one of Bobs mechs that I modified all you have to do is look at it to see what is wrong with the BV system. This BV is based on your average 4/5 pilot.
BattleMech Technical Readout
Type/Model: Hurtburger V
Tech: Clan / 3067
Config: Biped BattleMech
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 100 tons
Chassis: Composite
Power Plant: 400 XL Fusion with Supercharger
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 [86.4] km/h
Jump Jets: 4 Standard Jump Jets
Jump Capacity: 120 meters
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
4 ER PPCs
28 ER Medium Lasers
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
Enhanced Imaging Display
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Hurtburger V
Mass: 100 tons
Equipment: Crits Mass
Int. Struct.: 152 pts Composite 0 5.00
Engine: 400 XL 10 26.50
Engine Supercharger: (LT) 1 3.00
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6 [8]
Jumping MP: 4
Heat Sinks: 10 Double [20] 0 .00
XL Gyro: 6 2.00
Cockpit, Life Supt.: 5 3.00
Enhanced Imaging Display: 0 .00
Actuators: L: Sh+UA R: Sh+UA 12 .00
Armor Factor: 0 pts Standard 0 .00
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head: 3 0
Center Torso: 31 0
Center Torso (Rear): 0
L/R Side Torso: 21 0/0
L/R Side Torso (Rear): 0/0
L/R Arm: 17 0/0
L/R Leg: 21 0/0
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
2 ER PPCs RA 30 4 12.00
6 ER Medium Lasers RA 30 6 6.00
2 ER PPCs LA 30 4 12.00
6 ER Medium Lasers LA 30 6 6.00
9 ER Medium Lasers RT 45 9 9.00
7 ER Medium Lasers LT 35 7 7.00
1 Variable Range System HD 1 .50
4 Standard Jump Jets: 4 8.00
(Jump Jet Loc: 2 LL, 2 RL)
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 200 75 100.00
Crits & Tons Left: 3 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 43,773,334 C-Bills
Battle Value: 5,453
Cost per BV: 8,027.39
Weapon Value: 341 / 341 (Ratio = .06 / .06)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 27; MRDmg = 15; LRDmg = 9
BattleForce2: MP: 4J, Armor/Structure: 0/6
Damage PB/M/L: 3/3/1, Overheat: 4
Class: MA; Point Value: 55
|
Greyslayer
07/12/02 08:08 PM
63.12.145.238
|
I find in BV there is a serious disparity between level 1 and level 2 equipment. The fact that a unit could be several times cheaper to kill yet they have the same bv as well bugs me.
An example of lvl1 vs lvl2 would be something like this:
Griffin GRF-1N 1,021 bv
Wraith TR-1 1,089 bv
or
Wolverine WVR-6M 1,059
Wolverine WVR-7K 1,165
Despite having XL engines the second unit would walk all over the lvl1 unit quite easily ... is that a fair 'battle'? Well according to the stats that is.
An example of easy to kill units:
Crusader CRD-3R has no other crits in the torsos apart from those taken up by ammo. In other words you have a 100% chance of having an ammo explosion if you go internal and roll a crit. BV 948
Crusader CRD-4K is a lvl 2 unit with medium pulse. Not only that but the unit has 2 extra heat sinks in each torso to protect against criticals getting the ammo, BV 946 (sure the 4K has a lower maximum damage but it doesn't overheat much either).
Just a few examples .. I could rave on about arm actuators and being able to flip arms and so on but I won't at this stage.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
07/12/02 08:31 PM
4.35.174.250
|
I can't think of anything. It's ALL broken.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Chas
07/13/02 01:23 AM
66.187.6.93
|
Well. This might be a point.
If the design weren't illegal.
A legal battlemech design must have at least 1 point of armor in every location.
---
"High necked fashions just became the IN thing here on Tharkad."
-- Morgan Kell
-- Grave Covenant
|
Cheapbuzz
07/13/02 02:05 AM
165.76.24.56
|
So are you saying that unless I drop a laser and add some armor my point isnt valid?
|
Cadet
07/13/02 05:08 PM
206.102.34.133
|
I don't think it's bad. It's a vast improvement over the CV system.
Sure it has it's flaws but so does every system for comparisons. But it's better than using tonnage or heat sinks or CV or any other system that's been tried for balancing.
What's the system you've come up with?
Does not play well with others.
|
Warner_Doles
07/13/02 09:38 PM
206.27.48.9
|
*feints*
I am shocked... I didn't think you had it in you! hahahaha
|
Cadet
07/13/02 10:06 PM
206.102.32.48
|
I've long said that for all the things I disliked about Bryan Nystul's tenure as line developer, he did three things that were good for the game. And yes, even I can give credit where credit is due.
1) He killed the LAMs.
2) He came up with the Level 1, 2, 3 system.
3) He came up with the BV system.
You know Warner, I never harbored any ill will toward any of those people involved with the game, only with the products they came out with. And since Nystul was the point man and developer of the game my ire about the products released while he was in charge, he got my opinion about the job he was doing.
I really wish you could see that my problem was with Nystul the game developer and not Nystul the man.
Does not play well with others.
|
Warner_Doles
07/13/02 10:24 PM
206.27.48.9
|
I really wish you could see that my problem was with Nystul the game developer and not Nystul the man.
Hey I didn't even know this. Seriously. I didn't. I don't think I have ever seen you say this before come to think about it. My comment was towards the fact you posted the first postive thing I've seen from you in a long while. 
And I do respect your revelation here about Bryan the Developer. I understand and have no problems with that at all.
|
Cadet
07/13/02 11:00 PM
206.102.32.48
|
It isn't just Bryan the Devleoper vs Bryan the man; it's all of those involved with the game.
When I say somethign like "The Idiots Running the Game" it is not a personal attack against them or their characters, integrity, families, whatever... it is just another way of saying that the decisions and products coming from them are disagreeable to me. Kind of like when I say "Those idiots in Washington". I seriously doubt any of them are seriously stupid. I just disagree with them.
Bryan Nystul might be the nicest man to walk to Earth today. He might be a genius. I don't know him personally and probably never will. The same thing goes for anyone in charge of the game. I do know I have problems with a lot of what they do and the products that are coming out from them. That is what I rail at, not them personally.
I just hope you can see the destinction from now on. When I say "Randall Bills is an idiot because of X." it isn't that I hate him or wish him ill will. I just disagree with X.
Now GEN Shenseki IS an idiot. "I know, let's replace heavy armor with light vehicles." Yes, idiot.
Does not play well with others.
|
Warner_Doles
07/13/02 11:19 PM
206.27.48.9
|
When I say somethign like "The Idiots Running the Game" it is not a personal attack against them or their characters, integrity, families, whatever... it is just another way of saying that the decisions and products coming from them are disagreeable to me. Kind of like when I say "Those idiots in Washington". I seriously doubt any of them are seriously stupid. I just disagree with them.
Ok. That's clear and understandable. I can accept that for face value and admit I've done it myself...you know us Sub Sailors get pissed at the Cone heads at Squadron! In truth I never took that as insult or personal against my person. I hope I had made that clear.
I believe though that things are going to get better... I would even bet on it too... You've just got to trust me...
|
Bob_Richter
07/13/02 11:33 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>A legal battlemech design must have at least 1 point of armor in every location. <<<
Eh?
Hm. Can I get a pageref on that? I'm entirely too lazy to look it up myself.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
07/14/02 01:39 AM
63.12.146.77
|
I think it was good that they tried but the result was pretty abysmal (realistically they didn't need to try too much as it came from MFNA as someone posted the system there, all the hard work had been done).
Ultimately I was unhappy with the total removal of CV. Being a mercenary player I liked the idea of using CV to calculate weekly maintenance values and as a result of removing CV they came up with a series of bad fixes (such as 50 c-bills for any non-omni mech regardless of size to keep running per week instead of say 272 c-bills per week for a Griffin and 445 for an Awesome).
CV also allowed campaigns to involve repairs. BV does not lend itself too well to this at all, in fact I believe the system degrades the ability to play a campaign to any great effect. The only value that could be used now was C-bills and we know how well the clans don't work under that (we do don't we? ) or tonnage.
I can see why you would think it does work and accept your opinion. It just is about 120o from mine on this issue
Greyslayer
|
Cadet
07/14/02 03:08 AM
206.102.34.47
|
I guess I never look at it from a unit maintainence standpoint since I never play that way (campaigns), but weren't there campaign maintaince rules published in FM:Mercs?
I guess I just look at CV and BV as a way to make semi-balanced games. I can see your problem about a way to keep the same unit in fighting trim.
I remember when it was just OldTech we could use tonnage to even it out. 200 tons per lance was good, or we would use heatsinks and the games were fairly even. But when TRO2750 and then the clans came out it was just horribly unbalanced using tonnage. Even if you tried a percentage of tonnage based on tech it never really worked out. CV tried but it just didn't work and I think BV works better, not perfectly, but better.
I'm doubtful a perfect system exists, and certainly the BV system can be abused (I just think about how low in value the Wraith is) but it is better than CV in my opinion for balancing games.
I'd be perfectly happy to try an alternative system if one was offered.
Does not play well with others.
|
Cheapbuzz
07/14/02 05:53 AM
165.76.25.95
|
Why exactly were killing LAMs good for the game?
|
Nightmare
07/14/02 05:55 AM
194.251.240.106
|
>A legal battlemech design must have at least 1 point of armor in every location. <<<
>Eh?
>Hm. Can I get a pageref on that? I'm entirely too lazy to look it up myself.
I`ve tried to find it, but my BMR isn`t helping any. It may be an older rule though, as I think it sounds familiar somehow. Perhaps it was mentioned in some older (than 4th) boxed set? Or perhaps it`s been used in one of the computer games based on BattleTech?
Anyway, I think it`s a reasonable rule. If it`s not to be found in any rulebook, I`ll still enforce it in my own house  What use is a mech that can`t operate in water or vacuum when any old Griffin can?
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Cadet
07/14/02 09:39 AM
206.102.34.97
|
LAMs were horribly unbalanced in the board game. They were just entirely too mobile compared to ground units and consequencly to hard to hit.
Does not play well with others.
|
Warner_Doles
07/14/02 09:59 AM
206.27.48.9
|
Greyslayer...
What if the CV system was brought back, renamed Cost Value, and used in the manner that you stated...In reply to:
'idea of using CV to calculate weekly maintenance values'
...improve the outlook of the over all system? I agree with you about the CV system and its ability to keep campaigns organized and all, but I don't agree on the BV. Yet like Cadet I know there are some problems with it but overall the system works and I live with it.
Again, my question if the CV were reinstituted back into the game as Cost Value do you think it would be an improvement that you enjoy and work with?
|
Rick Raisley
07/14/02 07:51 PM
66.157.241.129
|
You you want a system that represents costs, like CV did, why not just use C-Bills? Every component has a C-Bills cost, and it would make sense that cost would be what you'd really be "spending" anyhow. Plus, every time I've seen someone come up with a way of calculating WV for newer equipment, it's simply been a ratio of WV to C-Bills cost. Eliminate the middle man: use C-Bills!
|
Greyslayer
07/14/02 08:53 PM
63.12.148.169
|
'Again, my question if the CV were reinstituted back into the game as Cost Value do you think it would be an improvement that you enjoy and work with?'
It could work. I think the main problem people had with CV was that it didn't offer an even keel of clans vs IS (of course we used a ratio of CV and suddenly the games we very evenly based). You do understand where I am coming from on the mercenary prospective though right? A standard value for all mechs just allow those with the Lyran assault mentality far too many resources on that front. If maintaining those units cost alot more at least that is something they would have to think about at a campaign level.
I could work with it ... enjoyment is possible as well. I would have to wait and see how well it is incorporated though.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
07/14/02 10:08 PM
63.12.148.169
|
Well Rick you see I did cover that in the post. Clan units are extremely expensive (for example it costs the clans 4.1 million c-bills just to field a Dasher D). The bang for your buck would seriously discount the clans out of the fight.
Comparitively CV allowed Clan to much of an advantage if again both values were equal. We worked out it was easier to use a ratio system (and give clanners better pilots over IS) in CV than to try to get such a system to even work in C-Bills. Realistically though C-bills would be the best system (once a proper ratio was worked out and pilot purchasing as well) with CV only providing weekly upkeep values of the units involved...
I'm a merc C-bills are a way of life so of course I would ultimately prefer them . A simpler method though would be to just use CV and the worst method would be BV. These are my opinions though.
Greyslayer
|
Chas
07/14/02 10:50 PM
66.187.4.98
|
I'm not saying your point itself isn't valid.
I'm saying your example isn't valid.
---
"High necked fashions just became the IN thing here on Tharkad."
-- Morgan Kell
-- Grave Covenant
|
Chas
07/14/02 11:11 PM
66.187.4.98
|
Bob. It's an erratta ruling.
---
"High necked fashions just became the IN thing here on Tharkad."
-- Morgan Kell
-- Grave Covenant
|
Chas
07/14/02 11:12 PM
66.187.4.98
|
Erratta Ruling
---
"High necked fashions just became the IN thing here on Tharkad."
-- Morgan Kell
-- Grave Covenant
|
Nightward
07/15/02 12:04 AM
211.26.1.240
|
I don't like what it does to Rocket Launchers. As they can be fired o ly once, but do hideous damage, the fact that they count towards the 'Mech's "Maximum Heat Per Turn" total drastically undervalues them, especially if the 'Mech runs particularly hot. I'll post a design of mine soon proving this point.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
07/15/02 01:27 AM
63.12.146.69
|
BV does account for this as part of the ammo BV ... no ammo no extra BV. Also a unit that overheats firing is in effect cheaper. So a unit with multiple Rocket Launchers could in effect make itself cheaper by using multiple launchers as compared to a unit being more efficient heat-wise. Also should not that logic that you said count for units with very limited ammo loadouts (example any unit with one ton of AC20 ammo)?
I haven't really looked at the BV of units with Rocket Launchers but I wouldn't think they would be more expensive than a unit like of comparable tonnage and technology?
I know where you are coming from but I don't entirely agree with it since the formulae can also be used to turn the results around the other way as well.
Greyslayer
|
MadWolf
07/15/02 02:39 AM
134.53.151.137
|
I'll check my 3rd Rulebook tommorow. It Might be there.
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
|
MadWolf
07/15/02 02:53 AM
134.53.151.137
|
My players and I Only use BV as a quick look estomate of the mechs overall worth. We understand that low BV dosen't nesarly mean bad mech' But it usually means that it has areas where its deployment is very limited. Usually the higher the BV the More likely it can handle any situation thrown at it.
For the C-bills thing we have streamlined it a bit, for our exteneded games. Since my players are all Merc units, theres a 100,000 Cbill hanger Fee + 500 a mech for Personal availability, Cost of weapons and armor replacement and Repair always works. When retofiting we have a chart for 2d6 to tell how much its going to cost.( you never want to roll snakeeyes). This blows a little realism off, but it streamlines the system. It really makes work as a GM easyier. 
But thats how we do things here. Confused?
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
|
NathanKell
07/15/02 09:50 AM
24.44.238.62
|
I believe Nightward's point was that BV undervalued rocket launchers.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Nightmare
07/15/02 10:35 AM
194.251.240.106
|
HmPro suggests the "correct" BV is 4,967 points. It doesn`t complain about the design lacking armor either.
BV calculation, pasted:
BATTLE VALUE CALCULATION FOR Untitled 'Mech
VALIDATED Design
DEFENSIVE BATTLE RATING CALCULATION:
Total Armor Factor x 2 0 x 2 = 0
Total Internal Structure Points x 0,5625 / 2 152 x 0,5625 / 2 = 85,5
Total 'Mech Tonnage 100
Total BV of all Defensive Equipment 0
--------
185,5
(Max. potential Heat Points - Heat Sink Capacity) x 5 (204 - 20) x 5 = 920
--------------------
920
185,5
-920
(Defensive BV cannot be below 1, per rules)
----------
At a full Run of 8, Movement Modifier is + 3 1
Multiply by Defensive Movement Factor of 1,3 x 1,3
----------
DEFENSIVE BATTLE RATING = 1,3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFENSIVE BATTLE RATING CALCULATION:
Offensive Weapons: Heat:
2 ER PPC 2 x 15 2 x 412 = 824
6 ER Medium Laser 6 x 5 6 x 108 = 648
2 ER PPC 2 x 15 2 x 412 = 824
6 ER Medium Laser 6 x 5 6 x 108 = 648
9 ER Medium Laser 9 x 5 9 x 108 = 972
7 ER Medium Laser 7 x 5 7 x 108 = 756
Variable Targeting BV = .1 x Weapon BV 4672 x .1 = 467,2
+ 4 Jumping Heat --------
Base Weapon Battle Rating 204 Max Heat Points 5139,2
Adjust Base Weapon Battle Rating for 'Mech's Heat Efficiency
X = (Total Heat Sinks x Base Weapon Battle Rating) / Max Heat Points
(20 x 5139,2) / 204 = 503,8431
Y = (Base Weapon Battle Rating - X) / 2 (5139,2 - 503,8431) / 2 = 2317,6784
--------------
Modified Weapon Battle Rating = X + Y = 2821,5216
Calculate Speed Factor
Add Running MP + Jumping MP 6 + 4 = 10
+ 1 for Supercharger + 1
----
11
Speed Factor (based on table or calculation) = 1,76
Offensive Battle Rating = Modified Battle Rating x Speed Factor
2821,5216 x 1,76 = 4965,878
OFFENSIVE BATTLE RATING = 4965,878
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total BV = Defensive BV + Offensive BV: 1,3 + 4965,878 = 4967,178
TOTAL BATTLE VALUE FOR 'MECH = 4 967
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|