Author Topic: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System  (Read 12459 times)

Ratboy

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
    • Time Warp Comics & Games
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #30 on: 19 February 2014, 03:56:24 »
On the calculations spreadsheet, Column AJ ("Blanket"), the formula references and ability AC3. That is the autocannon special ability, but it is not listed in the PDF as affecting the offensive point value.


Code: [Select]
...+IF(ISERROR(FIND("AC3",$P2,1))=FALSE,-0.1,0)+...


Was AC3 an error in the formula and it should be some other ability? or does an autocannon with a short range damage of 3 subtract 0.1 from the blanket value?




Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7506
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #31 on: 19 February 2014, 04:08:17 »
This isn't a rules issue, but an Excel one, and you'll find several instances similar to it.  The issue is that it's checking for "C3".  Unfortunately Excel doesn't understand that a unit with "AC3" is not applicable, and will apply to such a unit the C3 modifier.  So we have to perform these sorts of workarounds in order for the points to work out; see "ECM" and "AECM" for another example.
3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

iamfanboy

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1561
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #32 on: 03 March 2014, 19:26:14 »
An issue that I've bumped into repeatedly is a.... killer threshold, above which the 'Mech is extraordinarily lethal. It seems to be around 7-9 points.

Specifically, the Executioner-D is the one that I'm having doubts about. Despite costing 58 points under PV 2.0 (and this IS a situation I had under my own system!) it can regularly destroy units all out of proportion to its points cost - even worse with just a single skill upgrade. With 7/7/2 and OV1, it can deal out 8 points of damage in a single blow.

When you stack it up against the AS7-D, which costs 52 points under the new system, it seems to have a lot more than just 8 points of advantage (so far in 8 games where they've come to blows, the Executioner has come out on top 7 times even counting lancemates).

Yes, it could be down to tactics, keeping out of range etcetera, but it is rather hard to stay out of MEDIUM range - especially when you're up against a unit that goes 10/8j.

I'm thinking the advantage the Executioner has might be down to that 'killer threshold' of 7-8 damage, which lets it breach armor regularly on anything but the heaviest of designs, and outright kill most Sz2 units or smaller.

I'd want to do more testing, and track down more units that breach that damage threshold of 6 or 7 points (they are quite rare!), but perhaps adding an 'overkill' area to the PV, where if a unit deals more than X damage you increase the multiplier or something, could be a fix.

Frantic Pryde

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #33 on: 03 April 2014, 15:59:59 »
An issue that I've bumped into repeatedly is a.... killer threshold, above which the 'Mech is extraordinarily lethal. It seems to be around 7-9 points.

Specifically, the Executioner-D is the one that I'm having doubts about. Despite costing 58 points under PV 2.0 (and this IS a situation I had under my own system!) it can regularly destroy units all out of proportion to its points cost - even worse with just a single skill upgrade. With 7/7/2 and OV1, it can deal out 8 points of damage in a single blow.

When you stack it up against the AS7-D, which costs 52 points under the new system, it seems to have a lot more than just 8 points of advantage (so far in 8 games where they've come to blows, the Executioner has come out on top 7 times even counting lancemates).

Yes, it could be down to tactics, keeping out of range etcetera, but it is rather hard to stay out of MEDIUM range - especially when you're up against a unit that goes 10/8j.

I'm thinking the advantage the Executioner has might be down to that 'killer threshold' of 7-8 damage, which lets it breach armor regularly on anything but the heaviest of designs, and outright kill most Sz2 units or smaller.

I'd want to do more testing, and track down more units that breach that damage threshold of 6 or 7 points (they are quite rare!), but perhaps adding an 'overkill' area to the PV, where if a unit deals more than X damage you increase the multiplier or something, could be a fix.

We played our last game using the regular cluster hits table from TW (something sort of eluded to in the AS companion preview) and it fixed that problem right up. We also played with the TMM jumping and stationary changes and new PVs and the game felt perfect.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 844
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #34 on: 04 April 2014, 17:25:50 »
How many models did you have per side?

Frantic Pryde

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #35 on: 05 April 2014, 11:16:41 »
Did clan vs IS. 10 clan mechs and 5 elementals against 8 mechs 4 tanks and 4 BA squads.

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #36 on: 15 April 2014, 13:08:40 »
One thing I have noticed is that movement modifier is under-accounted for.

A mech with a +4 movement modifier and any damage value at long range can trump An assault mech every time for half of it's PV score.

Sure, precision ammo exists...but not for clan mechs.

Sure, you can take a better skill, but you're already double their BV and losing to it.

The only thing I can think of is do PV matchups by weight class, I.E.

100PV worth of lights, 150PV worth of medium, 60PV worth of heavies, and 60PV woth of assaults.

Otherwise small light mechs in a swarm are overwhelming, especially if they keep at range where you cannot hit them.

I believe either a force size disparity multiplier needs to be codified, or that movement modifiers have to cost waaaaay more (Like, PV-subtotal -TIMES- the movement modifier.)

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3985
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #37 on: 15 April 2014, 14:07:34 »
You feel that way after using the new beta point system? Or is this based on the current published point values?
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #38 on: 16 April 2014, 00:30:46 »
You feel that way after using the new beta point system? Or is this based on the current published point values?

New PV System.  Exemplar of this is a Jenner IIC 2 and a WSP-3L.

The Jenner IIC 2 Has a movement modifier of +4 (18"J).  At long range, a skill 4 pilot needs to roll a 12 to hit it (statistically 2.77% of the time, this will happen).

Two of these cost 40PV to field under the beta system.

An AS7-K costs 45 to field.  The Jenners have the speed and manuverability to stay at long range against this Atlas forcing him to have to roll 12s, while they have to roll 9's (Statistically 27.77% of the time, this or greater will happen.)  Even though the Atls has a greater than 10% PV advantage, the Jenners will roll all over him.

This is an extreme example, but it shows the power of the to-hit modifier vividly.  Should people be forced to play fast mechs to try and compensate, or should not the PV system be able to take the agility of a mech into account for balancing purposes.  If the Jenner cost twice as many points as it does (40 instead of 20) it wouldn't outmode assaults so much, because in a balanced army, you'll see fewer of them.

Now let's look at the LCT-3L.  It's only a 12"J, but it has Stealth and ECM.  At long range, it is literally impossible to hit this mech with a skill 4 pilot UNLESS you use precision ammo (again, not an option available to clan players.).  +3 for it's movement, +4 for range, +4 for skill, and then +2 for Stealth for a total of 13 to hit it.  This mech is available under the new PV system for 18PV.  Shouldn't a lance of Atlases be able to literally steamroll over a light company of Locusts?

I mean we're talking 144PV for 8 Locusts against 180 for 4 AS-7Ks.  That match should be very one sided, and it is...in favor of the locusts, by a land slide.  I would be surprised if more than one LCT died in that fight.

Yes, I am taking things to extremes, but at the edges of the envelope we find the faults in the system, right?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #39 on: 16 April 2014, 09:15:55 »
I believe the new point system is presented in the beta is assuming the ability to use the stand still for a -2 to hit option.  And to get the jump TMM bonus, the jper would have to take a +1 to hit penalty. 
So the Atlas, with skill 4, at long range against a +4 TMM, would need a 10 if standing still.
The jumper would need, with skill 4 and long range, 9.
That would make the point costs more appropriate?  If those rules change or end up not being used at all, then yes, I agree high TMM needs to cost more.  But do you think it needs to cost more with those two rules in particular?
Master Unit List website - where to find units, what factions use them, what's their BV?
http://www.masterunitlist.info
3025-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #40 on: 16 April 2014, 14:21:17 »
I believe the new point system is presented in the beta is assuming the ability to use the stand still for a -2 to hit option.  And to get the jump TMM bonus, the jper would have to take a +1 to hit penalty. 
So the Atlas, with skill 4, at long range against a +4 TMM, would need a 10 if standing still.
The jumper would need, with skill 4 and long range, 9.
That would make the point costs more appropriate?  If those rules change or end up not being used at all, then yes, I agree high TMM needs to cost more.  But do you think it needs to cost more with those two rules in particular?

If the Atlas stands still, it suffers a -2 to-hit it as well, aff?

So now the Locust would need a +4 for range, +4 for skill, -2 for movement, 6 to hit at long range against the Atlas.  (72.77% hit probability)

The Atlas would need +4 for range, +4 for skill,+2 for movement (no JJs used), and +2 for stealth, -2 for the Atlas not moving, for 10 (16.66% Hit probability)

The match would be a -bit- closer, as in a 2 on 1 match (36 vs. 45 points) the Atlas would need to score 4 hits to win, which SHOULD happen within 20 rolls.  However, even assuming that the first Locust dies exactly on turn 10, the Locusts have statistically dealt 14.554 Damage by that round, which is More health than the Atlas had, so with a whopping 9PV disparity, and a 60 ton advantage, the Atlas still loses, it just 'statistically' takes down one of the locusts with it some of the time.

But, with a 6 to-hit against the stationary Atlas, the Locust player would very likely use Jump jets, necessitating an 11 to hit instead of 10.

So I still think high to-hit modifier are too inexpensive, or that there needs to be a cap to it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27830
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #41 on: 16 April 2014, 14:28:30 »
If the Atlas stands still, it suffers a -2 to-hit it as well, aff?

Nope. The Atlas gives up it's own movement modifer, but there is no additional benefit to shooting at it.

So if the Atlas stays still and the Jenner IIC 2 uses its jumping movement, the shots are as follows:

Jenner: Skill (4) + Long Range (4) + Used Jumping Movement (1) = 9 to-hit.

Atlas: Skill (4) + Long Range (4) + Jenner's movement modifier (4) - Stood still (2) = 10 to-hit.

If the Jenner chooses not to jump, both shots go down by 1.

The advantage is towards the Jenner, but given the Atlas's far heavier armor and firepower, it can afford to take many more hits, while the Jenner can only take one or two before it is in serious trouble.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #42 on: 16 April 2014, 14:30:40 »
As Weirdo said, so the Locust would need skill 4 + long range 4 + 0 no TMM for atlas standing still = 8+.
Master Unit List website - where to find units, what factions use them, what's their BV?
http://www.masterunitlist.info
3025-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #43 on: 16 April 2014, 14:42:33 »
The Locust has Stealth Armor, so it would still be a 10, whereas the Locust would need an 8.

So Locust has a 41.66% Hit probability

The Atlas still has a 16.66% Hit probability

By Round 10, statistically the Locusts have dealt 8.332 damage before the first locust dies (again, statistically.)

That leaves the Atlas with a total health of 5.668 and about 10 rounds to finish things off.  The Remaining Locust will in this time deal another 4.166 points of damage, meaning that statistically the fight is now in the Atlas' favor.  But the Atlas has one point of health remaining after starting with a 60ton and 9 PV advantage.

If the Locust player had bumped up their skill to 3 (They have the points available to do so) The fight is once again very much in the locust player's favor and they are still 5 points under the cost of the Atlas.

P.S.  At what point do I get to not have to type in these captchas anymore?

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3985
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #44 on: 16 April 2014, 14:52:21 »
Sounds more like Stealth armor is undervalued. Maybe a multiplier of the TMM instead of a flat amount.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #45 on: 16 April 2014, 15:12:19 »
I think the total To-hit modifier at it's max needs to be accounted for, primarily.  A Jenner IIC 2 has a +4 to-hit modifier at max, a Locust has a +5 To-hit modifier at max.  Both of these really ought to cost more than half of an assault mech, owing to their difficulty to hit.  If at the end of the calculations, you add Total max to-hit modifier times 2 to the PV, you're adding a whopping 2 points to the atlas, but 10 to the locust.

That would bring the point disparity from 18 vs 45 to 28 vs 47, you could no longer field two locusts for the cost of one Atlas.

This would close the often times very high gap that exists, and hopefully mitigate swarm tactics, while also making a locust cost far more than a point of elementals.  (as it should, being the far more useful vehicle generally speaking)

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #46 on: 16 April 2014, 15:16:57 »
Stealth (0/1/2 modifiers) should not count as much as a "true" 2 movement modifier.
Master Unit List website - where to find units, what factions use them, what's their BV?
http://www.masterunitlist.info
3025-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3257
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #47 on: 16 April 2014, 15:38:39 »

I think the total To-hit modifier at it's max needs to be accounted for, primarily.  A Jenner IIC 2 has a +4 to-hit modifier at max, a Locust has a +5 To-hit modifier at max.  Both of these really ought to cost more than half of an assault mech, owing to their difficulty to hit.
Wouldn't this make them also overvalued against units that are less affected by to-hit modifiers?
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #48 on: 16 April 2014, 16:37:38 »
What do you mean, can you give me an example?  The To-hit modifier is woefully under rated.  The difference between a +4 and a +5 to hit isn't a flat number like a 12.77% survivability increase.  It's a curve.

At long range against a skill 4 pilot, the modifiers give the following hit probability
+0=41.66% Hit
+1=27.77% Hit
+2=16.66% hit
+3=8.33% hit
+4=2.77% hit
+5=0% hit

That means that a difference of 1 between units on their to-hit modifier means a difference of two to three times more shots landing.  It looks the same at medium and short range too, just higher numbers.

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3257
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #49 on: 16 April 2014, 18:54:56 »
What do you mean, can you give me an example?
Any unit with abilities that reduce the to-hit or ignore the to-hit. Such as:

AC ability with precision ammo
Artillery - Area of Effect (AOE) Damage
Bombing attacks
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7506
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #50 on: 16 April 2014, 19:12:55 »
Sounds more like Stealth armor is undervalued. Maybe a multiplier of the TMM instead of a flat amount.

Just to be clear, Stealth is already factored in that fashion (except for aero).  Defensive Value, Step D:

"For abilities that provide variable defensive
modifiers, such as Stealth, always use the
maximum possible benefit."

The rules assume the usual best-case scenario for valuing a defensive boost, which is why it adds 2 to the multiplier.  Considering how easy it is to raise the overall target defensive modifier, I think that's a reasonable precaution.
3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3985
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #51 on: 16 April 2014, 20:26:01 »
Right, that's not what I meant though.
Just musing that the defensive abilities could be multiplied by or in some way proportional to the TMM, instead of simply adding to.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #52 on: 16 April 2014, 20:33:30 »
Right, by taking the Total To hit modifier and multiplying it by two, you're adding a flat slope to the value instead of shallow multiplier.  The problem with a multiplier is that 110% of a very low PV is still a very low PV.


By doubling the modifier and then adding it to the total PV you're getting a value that is more detrimental the lower the unit's PV is.

+0=0pv
+1=1pv
+2=4pv
+3=6pv
+4=8pv
+5=10pv

4 more PV isn't going to hurt the heavy mechs that have 30-40 points already, but it's proportionally much more painful to a mech that is currently at 18PV.

And a +5 modifier, such as in the case of the LCT-3L, adds half again it's BV, which I think makes sense considering that it's impossible to hit under normal conditions for a standard pilot at long range.
« Last Edit: 16 April 2014, 20:37:26 by DarkJaguar »

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #53 on: 18 April 2014, 09:26:06 »
Okay, I'm doing some more math, but after a rough pass, I have an idea.

Because the total to-hit modifier makes you harder to hit, it acts as an armor multiplier (making each point of armor worth more).

Starting with a target of 4 (Skill 4, short range, no to-hit mod) I created a baseline.

By finding the multiplier of each total to-hit modifier against this base line I come up with the following.

+0=1
+1=1.1
+2=1.3
+3=1.6
+4=2.2
+5=3.3
+6=5.5
+7=11
+8=33

So, if we multiply the unit's ACTUAL armor, by this value we get it's effective armor.  This could be plugged in to the beta calculation in place of step D of the DIR to give us...

WSP-3L Current Beta:18

WSP-3L MOD:28.3(28)

The calculation I used is...

OFFENSIVE VALUE
Damage: (1*1)+(1*2)+(1*1)=4
Size: 1/2=.5
Overheat:0
Spec Abilities:n/a
Blanket Mod:n/a
Sub-total:4.5

DEFENSIVE VALUE
Move Rate: (12/2=6); 6*.25=1.5; 1.5+.5=2
Special Abilities:n/a
DIR
A:2*2=4
B:2
C:4+2=6
D:12J=+3, STL=+2; TMM +5; +5=3.3
E:6*3.3=19.8
Sub-Total:21.8

FINAL PV
Off+Def:4.5+21.8=26.3
Brawler:n/a
Force Mult:2
FINAL PV:28.3 (28)

I'll throw this at a few more mechs, but it's interesting to see that I got the same PV in this case as just adding TMM*2 at the end.

Threw this at a Mad Cat Prime

Mad Cat Prime Beta:49
Mad Cat Prime Mod:57
« Last Edit: 27 April 2014, 09:55:55 by DarkJaguar »

DarkSpade

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1992
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #54 on: 18 April 2014, 09:57:48 »
Other week we tried playing using the rules for giving up your movement mod to get +2 to hit.   It did make hits much more likely, but it also made the attacking unit a really juicy target.   Seems like a good balance of risk/reward.
Space Marines are guys who look at a chainsaw and think, “That should be balanced for parrying.”

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #55 on: 18 April 2014, 13:40:47 »
Other week we tried playing using the rules for giving up your movement mod to get +2 to hit.   It did make hits much more likely, but it also made the attacking unit a really juicy target.   Seems like a good balance of risk/reward.

Use it only on mechs that have a low to-hit mod to start with and keep them at long range.  A Masakari is perfect for that rule (5 damage at long range plus OVL3?  Heck yeah I'll take a -2 to hit to sacrifice the single point of movement mod it starts with.)

RebelRunner

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #56 on: 26 April 2014, 18:42:04 »
I'm recalculating point values for some heavy Aerospace assets for a campaign and had some questions regarding special abilities. Currently, it appears that only PNT (Point Defense) is mentioned in the BattleShop PDF, but the units I'm working with have fighter and small-craft bays, marines, et cetera. How should points for those be calculated?

EDIT: Also, should Extreme range values be incorporated into the Offensive Value calculation? I only recall seeing S/M/L in the PDF.
« Last Edit: 26 April 2014, 19:14:24 by RebelRunner »
*God Bless Regulus.
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* "Want someone out of a building for sure? Fire a magnesium parachute flare through the window. He’ll leave."

Sereglach

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • If it's salvagable, take it; if not, scorch it.
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #57 on: 28 April 2014, 01:53:02 »
I came here to get a feeling for the movement modifier and pilot skill debates, as it is pretty intense where I play.  To me, the current PV Beta, combined with several of the rules listed already in this discussion, seem relatively balanced.  To reiterate for clarification, those are:
-Declared Stationary (not holding position, but declaring a completely stationary unit) to gain -2 to hit while losing movement modifier.
-Declared Jumping imposes +1 to hit for attacking and +1 defense for movement modifier.
-Use of specialty munitions (precision, heat seeker vs. Heat Scale)
-Use of AOE attacks.
-12 is an automatic hit, regardless of perceived difficulty (mentioned here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,37970.0.html, I didn't notice it in this thread, but I may have overlooked it.)

Now, I do see where one could consider the PV calculations too lenient on Movement Modifiers (MM).  On the other hand, if one were to make that argument for MM, then they must also make the argument for pilot skill, as well.  For reference:  http://anydice.com/ (be sure to put in 2d6 for probability calculations).

Baseline Combat Reference:
-Seemingly average combat scenario:  +2(Medium Range) + 2(MM) + 4(Skill) = 8 or more to hit
-Seemingly average scenario will result in a hit 41.66% of the time (add up roll chances from 8-12).
When looking at pilot skill:
-As soon as you drop the pilot skill to 3, the shot target drops to 7, which will theoretically happen 58.33% of the time (add the chance of rolling 7).
-This result is nearly a 40% boost in performance over the 41.66% (16.66% increase in hit probability) at only a 10% cost in increased PV.
-The performance boost for skill 2, going from 7 to 6 shot difficulty, is only about 24% (a 13.88% chance to hit increase up to 72.22% from 58.33%).
-The performance return drops to 15% at skill 1 (shot difficulty of 5), and  barely 10% at skill 0 (shot difficulty of 4).

To me, this honestly seems to balance each other out.  You pay 10% for this relatively significant boost in skill, just as you pay for the movement modifiers of light units.

Same Scenario as above, only looking at movement modifiers countering skill:
-With a skill of 3, on the other hand, a movement modifier of 3 pushes the shot difficulty back to 8, which costs that same 10% boost in unit PV.
-The cycle can continue to 2Skill/4MM, 1Skill/5MM, 0Skill/6MM
-OR the cycle can be altered with other attack boosters, such as the rules mentioned in the beginning of this post.

As it stands, I'm not averse to seeing something like that PV boost mentioned by Dark Jaguar tested (very interested in hearing an official word on that), but at the same token I think something would also need to be done to address skill costs on a similar scale.  This would be done with a significant cost to go to 3, with decreasing PV costs down the line.  For example, a 1.3 PV multiplier for going from skill 4 to 3, an additional .2 to go down to 2, and an additional .1 to go down to 1 and 0.  This addresses the huge early on gain while compensating for the diminishing returns of later skills.

Dark Jaguar is correct in that the movement modifiers work in a bell curve, but so does pilot skill.  Pilot skill starts at the middle and has great gains early on, with ever diminishing returns.  Movement modifiers start slow with low early gains, and have their great gains later down the scale.

On the other hand, if absolutely nothing changes, and they keep the special circumstance rules listed in the beginning of this post, I'm perfectly ok with that, as I think PV values counter each other.  Regardless of any changes, as long as the system is reasonably balanced and enjoyable at the end of the day I'm fine with any tweaks they make.
Mercenary Pyromaniac and Scorched Earth Specialist

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #58 on: 29 April 2014, 11:54:52 »
Sereglach,

After reading over and applying much consideration to your post, I have discovered a problem.

Piloting skill is calculated after PV, but the pilot skill only affects a portion of the mech's abilities (namely, it's offensive value).

Now, we could add in the pilot skill as part of the PV equation, and just multiply the pffensive value by the modifier.

Or, we could figure out what the average percent contribution the offensive value gives to the total.

That's 42%, by the way.

So, if we apply the same base-line average shot as we did to the movement modifier and calculate based on the difference from "4", we come up with the following...

SkillPV modifier
01.50
11.42
21.31
31.17
41
5.86
6.75
7.66
8.61

These modifiers should balance well, and are based on the same logic as the movement modifiers I provided earlier.

iamfanboy

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1561
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #59 on: 29 April 2014, 14:14:36 »
Sereglach,

After reading over and applying much consideration to your post, I have discovered a problem.

Piloting skill is calculated after PV, but the pilot skill only affects a portion of the mech's abilities (namely, it's offensive value).

Now, we could add in the pilot skill as part of the PV equation, and just multiply the pffensive value by the modifier.

Or, we could figure out what the average percent contribution the offensive value gives to the total.

That's 42%, by the way.

So, if we apply the same base-line average shot as we did to the movement modifier and calculate based on the difference from "4", we come up with the following...

SkillPV modifier
01.50
11.42
21.31
31.17
41
5.86
6.75
7.66
8.61

These modifiers should balance well, and are based on the same logic as the movement modifiers I provided earlier.
To streamline pre-game play, however, if we're advocating a switch to using these numbers it'd be best to round them to the nearest imho, like so:

SkillPV modifier
01.5
11.4
21.3
31.2
41
5.9
6.8
7.7
8.6

Remember, what Alpha Strike is trying to achieve is NOT perfect mathematic accuracy of all odds involved in the game's play, but an easy-to-use and enjoyable simplification of Battletech's rules using Battleforce as a starting point. Taking the fractional accounting too far kinda ruins that.

Besides, what difference does .03 in the cost of a 40 point unit make?