Welcome to the HeavyMetalPro Forums

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:43 am

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:47 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 8:00 pm
Posts: 939
Location: Keene, NH
Let's face it, even the 'changes' to BV2 still leaves us with a system that is utterly broken and nonsensical -- when it came out I said BV2's biggest problem was that it didn't address/change any of the WEAPON values when things like the Clan LPL being so far below the ERPPC was ridiculous. It is simply not a balanced system and is far, FAR too complex for its own damned good!

But I was thinking: In what was formerly "level 1" play and is now -- well *** knows what the current (agonizingly convoluted train wreck spread out over multiple books and impossible to follow in a linear fashion) rulebooks call it -- did anyone EVER have problems with a game being unbalanced when measured by tonnage?

I can't think of a single instance in which a game not using any of the fancy advanced tech was unbalanced measured by tonnage, so... why the hell isn't that the starting point?!? Before 2750 and Clantech came along the game had a system that worked JUST FINE!!! Have all 3025 gear be the base values, and then scale advanced technologies off of this.

For a lot of the chassis hardware this becomes piss simple; XL engine for example just count it as if it wasn't XL, then maybe shave a hair off it for the increased vulnerability. Endo-steel actually makes ZERO contribution other than weight changes, so just count it as if it weighed the standard amount. Same for FF, have it's game balance value be what that many points would weigh as standard armor. Heat sinks you just count 1 point for every heat dissipated past 10.

Even most weapons would be simple to calculate. Clan ERPPC for example is best compared not to the PPC, but the standard large since it's got no minimum range. 15/8ths the damage, 7/5ths the range, and can head cap so give it a little bit more of a nudge by rounding up to the nearest half or whole. I'd call it 13.5 or 14 ton equivalent. (13.125 by the math). I'd rank the clan ERML at 5, same as a standard large. That might seem 'funky' but the low tonnage, nearly same damage and SIGNIFICANTLY less heat makes it damned near a straight-up trade.

Some equipment like TSM is harder to quantify, but it shouldn't be TOO hard to come up with a workable value by way of some experimenting.

Haven't worked up any real charts for weapons, the idea just kind of rattled around in my head as I was trying to make sense of the TRAIN WRECKS of developer ineptitude that are the various 'modern' manuals; where everything is as convoluted and obtuse as possible, with single items spread out over eight pages in three different books (often 20+ pages apart when in the same damned book) with all the stupid malfing half-assed "fiction" slopped in-between, and so forth. I STILL can't make the least bit of sense out of the new tech levels/classification thing.

But what do I know? I consider everything from 2nd Edition Compendium onwards to be steps BACKWARDS in usability.

_________________
[size=80][color=#114488][i]
It seems very queer that we invariably entrust the writing of our regulations for the next war to men totally devoid of anything but theoretical knowledge.[/i][/color][/size]


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
There are many problems with many of the game's systems.

The simple fact that BV has evolved through multiple generations and they STILL don't have it right, clearly shows the garbage inherent in the system. Clan tech, and indeed the Clans at all, were a huge mistake to introduce to the game. Besides wiping out an entire interesting section of the universe (the northern Periphery had tons of potential which was never developed) the whole Clan thing just never made rational sense. A few hundred thousand warriors at most, versus the millions of soldiers and trillions of people in the Inner Sphere. Screw that. I'm actually considering dropping back to a time just around the War of 3039 and the tech revival, and rewriting the game universe in my own way without the Clans.

I could say the same thing about the aerospace design rules; whoever came up with the idea that SI should be based on speed (and not the other way around, as with all other types of CBT units) should be keelhauled over a school of jellyfish. I've been saying for years that we need an entirely new game with streamlined rules set in the CBT universe, because let's face it: the game story, and the ability to design entire national militaries from infantry squads up to warships, are what really keep us here.

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Last edited by Shades of Grey on Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
Oh, and fully agreed about the rule books. It's absolute garbage that the rules are so spread out now; they obviously tried to emulate the D&D model of book collections, and failed miserably.

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
The streamline attempt was tried with the Click Base stuff and now with the Alpha Strike rules...mixed results. BT needs an overhaul in the rules for sure, but the basics of the games don't need to change.

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
Antisocial General
Antisocial General

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:35 am
Posts: 7883
Location: MLC, Lyran Alliance.
Another thing that annoys me is the completely illogical way the game gives items like XL engines and ES2 massive space restrictions or other issues or that make no sense when you look at them with any sense of engineering reality.

_________________
Be careful what you wish for. I might let you have it. :evil:


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:05 pm 
Offline
Village Drunk
Village Drunk

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: Worcester, MA
Quote:
Another thing that annoys me is the completely illogical way the game gives items like XL engines and ES2 massive space restrictions or other issues or that make no sense when you look at them with any sense of engineering reality.
It's not a simulation of any reality, it's a game. Every plus needs to have a minus for game balance.

_________________
[b]When life gives you lemons, throw them back and ask for cookies.[/b]
[url]http://210darryl.wordpress.com/[/url]
[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-us.gif[/img] [img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-ireland.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:14 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
Yet it seems for every plus in the game we get to negatives to counter those. The joys of game balance.

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:10 am 
Offline
Village Drunk
Village Drunk

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: Worcester, MA
Quote:
Yet it seems for every plus in the game we get to negatives to counter those. The joys of game balance.
It's supposed to be that.

_________________
[b]When life gives you lemons, throw them back and ask for cookies.[/b]
[url]http://210darryl.wordpress.com/[/url]
[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-us.gif[/img] [img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-ireland.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
Quote:
Quote:
Yet it seems for every plus in the game we get to negatives to counter those. The joys of game balance.
It's supposed to be that.
True, but some of the checks and balances still have us going, uhmm what did this add to the game?

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:09 pm 
Offline
Village Drunk
Village Drunk

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: Worcester, MA
The more powerful the item, but bigger the drawback has to be.

_________________
[b]When life gives you lemons, throw them back and ask for cookies.[/b]
[url]http://210darryl.wordpress.com/[/url]
[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-us.gif[/img] [img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-ireland.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
Okay here is one, you want to make an aim shot at target that is immobile,you didn't move either, you have a 4 for your gunnery and you have a TC for your weapons, now do you get a total of the -1 for the TC, -3 for immobile and add in the +3 for aiming the shot resulting in a -1 total and how does that balance out again since the target hasn't moved, nor have you moved so did some craziness like alien space bats come in and add extra weight to the rounds or kick up extra dust, to cause you not have more in your favor over the target that can't move at all?

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
And to stay on topic some what, I have that, randomly picking mechs, I have gotten better balance for a fight then using the random mech charts given by FASA or WK or FP or CGL etc...and the BV always seems to come out for both sides very close, so to me that tells me that BV system has issues or isn't well thought out.

Does anyone have any idea as to why they came up with it in the first place?

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline
Village Drunk
Village Drunk

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: Worcester, MA
Quote:
Okay here is one, you want to make an aim shot at target that is immobile,you didn't move either, you have a 4 for your gunnery and you have a TC for your weapons, now do you get a total of the -1 for the TC, -3 for immobile and add in the +3 for aiming the shot resulting in a -1 total and how does that balance out again since the target hasn't moved, nor have you moved so did some craziness like alien space bats come in and add extra weight to the rounds or kick up extra dust, to cause you not have more in your favor over the target that can't move at all?
You don't get a plus for an aimed shot at an immobile mech unless you go for the head.

Your resolution, presuming short range and the target standing is (4, gunner) + (-4, immobile) + (-1 target computer) = (-1). It would be 0 if the target was prone and you were not adjacent (+1 penalty) , and (-3) if you were adjacent to the prone target (-2).

In all cases, provided you don't target the head, you hit the mech.

I fail to see what the issue is here.

_________________
[b]When life gives you lemons, throw them back and ask for cookies.[/b]
[url]http://210darryl.wordpress.com/[/url]
[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-us.gif[/img] [img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/flag-ireland.gif[/img]


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 8:00 pm
Posts: 939
Location: Keene, NH
I've been playing (and testing) this idea working out a list of issues that would/should be addressed... and to work on some terminology. For now I'm calling the system CTE. Conventional Tonnage Equivalent. Newer technologies are 'rated' on weight as what they would be in tonnage if you could build them in 3025 technology.

The first thing to be dealt with is where 3025 technology is NOT balanced by tonnage. There aren't a lot of devices/combinations that are truly broken in this regard, but the most obvious two are ammo placement and volatility, and jump jets.

In the case of jets, I think the obvious answer is that jump is jump is jump, regardless of unit size, so just make ALL jump jets take two CTE.

To deal with volatile ammo I think the best approach is that if you don't have case, AMMO is free tonnage. 0 CTE. This makes up for the fact that running hot or one good crit, and boom you're OUT of the fight since in 3025 tech, you don't survive ammo explosions. This would also compensate for the practice some players have of just dumping stuff like machine gun ammo turn one. When it comes time to get into more advanced stuff post 3025 -- like the gauss -- The weapon's weight would likely have to be balanced accordingly. Likewise MOST 3025 conventional weapons are already ridiculously heavy for what they deliver, some more so than others. (AC-2 and AC-5 much?) so alleviating that burden helps with balance.

These two changes -- along with common sense balancing like an XL engine counting as the weight of a standard, endo costing as the weight of standard, and paying one ton per heat dissapated REGARDLESS of what sink type or tonnage got you there, alleviates a lot of the balance concerns moving onward from 3025.

See Clan 'Mechs like the Pack Hunter. Generally speaking it's not exactly broken in BV2 at 1369... but in the right hands it can go toe to toe with almost anything despite the razor thin armor.

I figure under my system the clan ERPPC would work out to 14 CTE. I use the large laser as the baseline for large weapons, it does 87.5% more damage, has a 40% increase in medium range, and is the same heat to damage ratio, so 5 * 1.875 * 1.4 == 13.125... I would round that up to 14 just because it can headcap. So for the PH we get:

3 Structure
9 Engine
14 Jump
20 Heat
3 Gyro
3 Cockpit
4 Armor
14 PPC

So 70 CTE... A little over what a 3025 Warhammer would be worth (WHM-6R == 68). I'm ok with that result...

It also makes for a simpler system as calculating the base CTE of a unit is just simple addition once a weapons chart is in place. THAT'S still my biggest problem with BV is that it is just too complex for it's own damned good -- as I've often said a lot can be learned from GW and their point system.

So once I work out a better scaling system for calculating what new weapons are worth, it's a workable baseline. The next step would be skill balancing and to that end, I think units should have their weapon value tracked separately from the rest of the chassis, since gunnery only impacts weapon effectiveness and dick-else! PILOTING on the other hand improves survivability -- from 20+ damage, from head hits, from gyro hits -- so that would be applied after.

So ((weapon CTE * gunnery adjustment) + chassis CTE) * piloting adjustment would be the deployable values. The question becomes what should the adjustment amounts actually be?

In the BV system one of my gripes was ALWAYS that gunnery was undervalued and piloting overvalued, and the amalgam of the two into a single result just wasn't balanced... the reason I say this is the numbers to me feel completely unrelated to the curve of the dice. Remember, 2d6 is 36 possible outcomes.

To that end for gunnery I think the best approach would be to -- as always -- make 4 gunner a zero modification to the weapon CTE, but to use real-world modifiers to determine the odds of hitting with that skill. To that end let's say a 1 movement modifier on self, 2 movement modifier from target, and 2 for medium range. That is the 'norm'.. so with a 4 gunner that's a 9 -- aka 5 in 18 odds.. 27.77~% chance of hitting. From there we can work up a chart:
Code:
Gunnery   Multiplier
   0          3
   1         2.6
   2         2.1
   3         1.5
   4          1
   5         0.6
   6         0.3
   7         0.1
That might seem a bit harsh -- in BOTH directions, but I always felt that good gunnery was undervalued and poor gunnery was overvalued. You ever play a game with a 7 gunner? Unless you and the enemy are at point-blank and standing there like stumps, you might as well not even HAVE weapons. Meanwhile this could put a curb on the munchkins who flip out if you suggest they even field anything less than a 2 gunner.

... and it's not THAT harsh when you account for this multiplier only going towards the weapon CTE and not the chassis.

Still, perhaps that curve should be scaled. Is that overkill? There's also the issue that 8 gunner would be zero, and that's not good. Thoughts?

Piloting is a bit trickier to quantify. This is one I'm still mulling over in my head as to how much of a factor it should be. Whilst PSR's can make or break you, how do we actually rate that? I guess a start would be to just look at the odds of success without any modifiers:
Code:
PSR odds of success, no modifiers

Piloting    odds of success
   0             100%
   1             100%
   2             100%
   3            97.22%
   4            91.66%
   5            83.33%
   6            72.22%
   7            58.33%
... and let's face it, the most common PSR is "hey I took twenty damage"... but SHOULD we just say "two modifier" so there is even a curve to base on?

Even then:
Code:
PSR, 2 modifier
Piloting    odds of success   relation to normal:
   0             100%                1.714
   1            97.22%               1.666
   2            91.66%               1.571
   3            83.33%               1.429
   4            72.22%               1.238
   5            58.33%               1.000
   6            41.66%               0.714
   7            27.77%               0.476
   8            16.66%               0.285
Still looking at a pretty sharp curve... the question is how to scale this curve to match the overall importance to gameplay... and I have NO idea where to even start on that. I dislike just throwing numbers at things without a reason but... when it comes to the importance of the PSR that's really hard to put a value to. Whilst I think that on the positive side the 1.384 as the max and relatively low difference between the values is correct, there's no way dropping to a 5 pilot should make the 'mech worth 80% the total value. STILL, I kind of like that the curve up towards better piloting is a lot less harsh than going down -- it truly reflects the impact on the game since that 25% for 0 pilotalways felt like far too much of a penalty for what it does in the game, whilst the 15% savings on a 8 gunner was a serious whiskey tango foxtrot considering that even without modifiers you've got a 58.3% chance of failing every PSR. THAT IS BACKWARDS!

So... for now scale it to 15% on the better piloting?
Code:
Piloting    Modifier
   0          1.15
   1          1.14
   2          1.12
   3          1.09
   4          1.05
   5          1.00
   6          0.94
   7          0.89
   8          0.85
That's not too bad... I think it reflects well how going below 3 piloting has diminishing returns, whilst still having that 8 piloting being a kick to the groin. Certainly better than the seemingly arbitrary "better is 0.15% more, worse is 0.5% less" that doesn't even reflect the actual utility of said skill -- one of BV's biggest flaws.

The whole piloting/gunnery math is far, far more complex than I'd like, but it's just not a flat linear you can apply and say "close enough" given the DIRECT correlation to die-roll probability. On the flip side a FIXED value for certain equipment should have been a no-brainer from the start... and it was before the fancy 'tech was added.

I'm gonna play more with this and work up a small weapons chart for 3050 era weapons and gear just to see how a few designs build-out.

Any input on this would be nice as whilst "Vince Russo and pals" MENTIONED replacing BV2, then backtracked to give it "one more chance" I think it might be time to say screw it and DIY.

_________________
[size=80][color=#114488][i]
It seems very queer that we invariably entrust the writing of our regulations for the next war to men totally devoid of anything but theoretical knowledge.[/i][/color][/size]


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 8:00 pm
Posts: 939
Location: Keene, NH
Playing with the gunnery skill scaling more, yeah using 5 modifier as the base is too harsh. Dropping it to 4 feels much more balanced, and then scaling the result so that the 0 gunner is only twice the value of a 4 gunner and we can actually calculate for an 8 gunner. I then adjusted the values to the nearest "convenient" calculation and adjusted the low skill skew to be a bit less severe.
Code:
Gunnery   Multiplier   
   0         2.25
   1         2.0
   2         1.75
   3         1.4
   4          1
   5         0.75
   6         0.5
   7         0.33
   8         0.25
That makes a lot more sense... since with that 4 modifier as a baseline a 0 gunner is looking at odds of 91%, whilst the 4 gunner is looking at 41%.

Joe forbid our values be based on the actual curve of the dice. Admittedly as the modifiers drop that high gunnery is worth less and less, but that's why I chose a high modifier so as to at least TRY and give really crappy gunners a chance. ALSO why it's important to isolate the gunner modifiers to JUST the weapons and not the whole chassis.

_________________
[size=80][color=#114488][i]
It seems very queer that we invariably entrust the writing of our regulations for the next war to men totally devoid of anything but theoretical knowledge.[/i][/color][/size]


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
Stratego
Stratego

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2001 8:00 pm
Posts: 10855
Location: Ft. Hood Texas
Like the direction you are going.

_________________
Karagin-

Darkness is a friend of mine. Sometimes I have to beat it back, or it would overwhelm me. Shirley Meier

[url]http://karagin12.livejournal.com/[/url]

The Wookiee, he's not wearing any pants!

[img]http://www.heavymetalpro.com/countries/mil-army.gif[/img]


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
American English Language Pack © MaĆ«l Soucaze