Author Topic: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted  (Read 63177 times)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #60 on: 19 July 2016, 12:17:50 »
Sheet updated with old vs. new PV columns.  All the calculation columns, however, use the new PV steps; only the MUL PVs column has any old values.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Battletech/Alpha%20Strike%20PV%20-%20Output.xlsx
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #61 on: 19 July 2016, 13:49:11 »

After having looked at it, I think that the issue is being misdiagnosed, given rise to bad and complex solutions. Complex solutions are usually bad ones.

Some people have reported that they have problems handling strikers such as the Locust IIC and Savannah Master. Both of which can be hard to hit, but people can adapt (both in AS & TW). However the difference between TW and AS is that the earlier examples do their full damage at medium range (using MLs and ERSLs), which can make retaliation more difficult (more so than in TW).
As such, the core difference/problem is that: In AS, many strikers lack motivation to make a trade-off.

If the short-to-medium cut off point is raised up, then strikers would be forced to make a choice, either go for max damage but with higher risks, or do far less damage with less risk.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #62 on: 19 July 2016, 13:59:49 »
After having looked at it, I think that the issue is being misdiagnosed, given rise to bad and complex solutions. Complex solutions are usually bad ones.

Some people have reported that they have problems handling strikers such as the Locust IIC and Savannah Master. Both of which can be hard to hit, but people can adapt (both in AS & TW). However the difference between TW and AS is that the earlier examples do their full damage at medium range (using MLs and ERSLs), which can make retaliation more difficult (more so than in TW).
As such, the core difference/problem is that: In AS, many strikers lack motivation to make a trade-off.

If the short-to-medium cut off point is raised up, then strikers would be forced to make a choice, either go for max damage but with higher risks, or do far less damage with less risk.

I'm sorry, but this is only a PV revision.  I see your point, but while it may be true that short range is too short, which in turn affects medium range, gameplay revisions are not on the table at this moment.  In particular, redoing any significant part of the BT-->AS conversion formula would lead to mass suicides at CGL.  We have to work with what we have.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #63 on: 19 July 2016, 14:33:07 »
I'm sorry, but this is only a PV revision.  I see your point, but while it may be true that short range is too short, which in turn affects medium range, gameplay revisions are not on the table at this moment.  In particular, redoing any significant part of the BT-->AS conversion formula would lead to mass suicides at CGL.  We have to work with what we have.
True, the ideal solution would be a lot of work (too much). But the current PV changes would affect a whole lot more then what sparked this. VTOLs for example are going become more expensive in general, but they have plenty of effective counters. A better solution would be to give the players more optional tools for countering medium range strikers.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #64 on: 19 July 2016, 14:53:06 »
In terms of this PV increase, why do you feel VTOLs don't need it but that presumably hovers or what have you do?  Or do you think that VTOLs just don't need as much of one?

Things can be tweaked if necessary at this stage.  For example, instead of using a unit's total defense to-hit modifier minus stealth to form the basis of the new adder, TMM only could be used.  That would actually be simpler (and by removing non-TMM modifiers, VTOLs, infantry and protos don't pay as much).  But I'd like to hear your reasoning.
« Last Edit: 19 July 2016, 14:54:43 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #65 on: 19 July 2016, 15:07:48 »
For VTOLs especially we have effective counters such as FLK, Anti-Aircraft Specialists. Also VTOLs can't exploit terrain, which was offered as one of the core issues with the 'problem' strikers. So the situation with them is balanced and doesn't warrant an 50% increase in their PV. 
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #66 on: 19 July 2016, 15:11:36 »
And for fast units we have Precision Ammo and Artillery.  Counters exist for both, and are of roughly similar availability and rarity.

VTOLs can absolutely exploit terrain by flying nape-of-earth (elevation 1"), except partial cover which hovers can't use either.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #67 on: 19 July 2016, 15:42:54 »
We also have the Demoralizer SPA, which I'd argue is the most effective anti-Annoying Bastard tool there is.

These various tools will be available even in the event of higher PVs to balance Annoying Bastards.  I know Xotl's project isn't to explore balancing means other than PV tuning.. but I do hope that the PV tuning keeps scissors>paper mechanics in mind.  Roughly speaking, I'd feel a 50% increase in PV is the high extreme of a PV increase that would still be fair when not taken in vacuum.
« Last Edit: 19 July 2016, 15:47:32 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #68 on: 19 July 2016, 15:44:51 »
And for fast units we have Precision Ammo and Artillery.  Counters exist for both, and are of roughly similar availability and rarity.
Some people apparently need more to handle strikers.

Quote
VTOLs can absolutely exploit terrain by flying nape-of-earth (elevation 1"), except partial cover which hovers can't use either.
And flying nape-of-earth doesn't fit with the movement of the 'problem cases' presented. Also it would open them up to more counters such as mines.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Eugee

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #69 on: 19 July 2016, 16:18:20 »
High TMM mechs wouldn't be so broken if TMM was affected by slowing terrain.  In TW using terrain slows you down, and drops your TMM.  It does not in AS, and that's why high TMM units are undervalued.  If you just make terrain have a downside for high TMM units, they are no longer undervalued.

By increasing their costs instead of fixing this problem with terrain, you're just overvaluing high TMM units when they aren't in terrain.

I know this is a thread about PV adjustment.  I don't think it solves anything--and if anything it ensures that terrain will NEVER be fixed, since PV is balanced around high-TMM units exploiting terrain benefits.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #70 on: 19 July 2016, 16:21:46 »
A quick clarification.  PV no more takes into account terrain than BV does, because it would be impossible to do so.  All calculations assume battles are taking place in Saskatchewan, so any future adjustments to terrain defence mods, up or down, would not require a change in PV again.

The problem is that the current set of PV numbers also assumes Saskatchewan, but undervalues defence and especially defence + firepower regardless.
« Last Edit: 19 July 2016, 17:07:37 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Eugee

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 172
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #71 on: 19 July 2016, 16:24:54 »
Okay, then disregard me.  :P

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #72 on: 19 July 2016, 16:55:05 »
My initial impression of the Medium Damage X (Defense -1) is that its a penalty more then a valuation.

Going through the spreadsheet, for stock designs the penalty is never really too bad.  12 points at worst on the spreadsheet.  I'll note the spreadsheet provided is not perfectly proofed and is clearly intended to give an idea of normal battlemechs.  Finding problems (The defense mod is not including their innate defensive modifiers.) with Battle armor, Protomechs, VTOL's, WiGE, and LAM's. (I assume the maximum WiGE movement would be used for PV calculations for LAM's)
(And other errors. Şoarece Superheavy MBT.  looks like it lost the brawler mod.  It just stuck out when I started comparing maximum after vs before differences.)

For non stock experiments I can push the annoying bastard penalty to about +45 points. (7/11 VTOL (+4 To hit, x3 Multiplier)  Lots of clan SRM's.)

Other points of failure.  Not applying the bonus to Short ranged only units will just leave a smaller set of undervalued units.

Counter suggestion.  Have a multiplier similar to the brawler multiplier.   Units with +3 defense get a 20% bonus to their PV.  Units with +3 defense and Deal medium damage Get +40% PV.   Or maybe units with 20+ move get a bonus with a similar bonus for speed plus medium range.

Point of interest.  Insure the wording when we get down to writing the actual rules includes using the maximum available movement mode movement distance when determining defensive mods.  A few edge cases involving Improved jump jets, partial wings, and mechanical jump boosters, LAMs I worry about.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #73 on: 19 July 2016, 17:53:19 »
My initial impression of the Medium Damage X (Defense -1) is that its a penalty more then a valuation.

If it gets me accurate values, we can call it the Scarlet Letter or Mark of Cain for all I care. :)

Quote
I'll note the spreadsheet provided is not perfectly proofed and is clearly intended to give an idea of normal battlemechs.  Finding problems (The defense mod is not including their innate defensive modifiers.) with Battle armor, Protomechs, VTOL's, WiGE, and LAM's. (I assume the maximum WiGE movement would be used for PV calculations for LAM's)

The sheet should be without error, at least as far as what it intends to do: there's no problems that I'm aware of (well, other than the Brawler thing discussed below).  Move Def Mod (column T) gives TMM, while Full Def (column V) gives the unit's defense mod after MAS, Stealth and all unit type mods have been applied.  If you see any specific errors in the sheet, please let me know, as this would be the sheet used to update the MUL should the revision be approved.

Quote
(And other errors. Şoarece Superheavy MBT.  looks like it lost the brawler mod.  It just stuck out when I started comparing maximum after vs before differences.)

That's weird.  You're right in that the current MUL give the tank the Brawler discount, but the loss is not an error: since it has a long range damage value, the tank is disqualified from that discount as per the ASC p. 141.  Oddly enough, I can't remember "fixing" this.  This is one of those cases (actually, the only case in the game's ~6500 units) where the extra 0.5 points of long range damage wind up costing the unit a fortune.  Not really sure how to get around that, or if I need to: the line has to be somewhere.

Checking the old sheet (current MUL values), I see 13 units in total that have the discount when they shouldn't.  The Şoarece is the only one that really costs anything.  The revision sheet has all those still except for the Şoarece, oddly enough.  I'll fix whatever is going wrong with the calculations and upload a corrected output sheet.  Thanks for the catch.

Quote
Other points of failure.  Not applying the bonus to Short ranged only units will just leave a smaller set of undervalued units.

Short-range units get off deliberately.  It's almost always easy to hit something that close, and it's such a small part of the AS battlefield.  I wasn't concerned about such units, though I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always.

Quote
Counter suggestion.  Have a multiplier similar to the brawler multiplier.   Units with +3 defense get a 20% bonus to their PV.  Units with +3 defense and Deal medium damage Get +40% PV.   Or maybe units with 20+ move get a bonus with a similar bonus for speed plus medium range.

I appreciate the suggestions, but I've already run a few numbers on the suggestion I'm using now, whereas you give two different models, neither tested, and don't really show why the one I suggest doesn't work or why either of yours would be better.  As I tried to explain earlier, each time I have to test a model it takes a pile of time and Excel work and the like.  I won't do that without good reason as to why.

Quote
Point of interest.  Insure the wording when we get down to writing the actual rules includes using the maximum available movement mode movement distance when determining defensive mods.  A few edge cases involving Improved jump jets, partial wings, and mechanical jump boosters, LAMs I worry about.

I'll be sure to run the final wording by the thread for a sanity check.
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 11:09:22 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #74 on: 19 July 2016, 22:58:05 »
Big thanks to Thunder for pointing out the error with the PV discount.  The problem ran deeper than I thought, affecting numerous units with 0.5 damage ratings (though many had already been corrected by someone else, thankfully).  An updated spreadsheet has been uploaded to the usual link.

I've updated the MUL values to correct all these errors.  After all, I don't know how long it will take to get this revision finished, approved, and uploaded to the MUL, and in the meantime I'd like people to have accurate stats, especially with GenCon approaching.
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 01:19:31 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #75 on: 20 July 2016, 01:04:49 »
Ok, so I took the spreadsheet from the bottom of page 2 with the 'annoying bastard' column, and compared it to my thesis that TMM could be valued the same way skill rating is using the same formula, with TMM 2 being average (and no negative modifiers for TMM1/0.) I looked at the outliers where that idea and the AB idea ended up giving significantly different results. Here were some of the common situations that caused differences:

- I wasn't adding any penalties for units with TMM 2 or lower. This made moderate-speed units with lots of damage like the Sphinx more expensive in the AB system by up to 8 points. I gave them a pass as their TMM was 'average'. This also happens with some high-damage combat vehicles, so it isn't just mechs. The very biggest difference was the Fensalir Combat WiGE (HAG) because it was only TMM 2. The AB system adds 19PV to it, and I add none!

- higher-damage battle armor gets a pass in my system due to having lower TMM's, but they get a pile of PV added in the AB system. The Hauberk and Nephilim were two of the biggest differences.

- In general, I don't add as many PV to the AB-type units as the AB system does, but the TMM 4 and 3 units end up being the furthest away. The Phantom C and Crimson Langur E produced the biggest pure-speed-demon disparities: there was about a 11PV difference between my skill stuff and AB. The more traditional annoying stuff like the Dasher G and Locust 6M end up more like 5PV less expensive in my stuff than AB. So, I'm still penalizing the higher TMM guys, but not as much as AB.

- Some VTOL's with moderate mid-range damage and TMM 3 or 4 get hit with much more PV in the AB system. Balac and Hawk Moth II cost about 12PV more under AB than my idea.

- zero damage, high TMM units get punished less in AB than my system, but even then, I only generally dock them 2 or 3 extra PV. Zero damage units could probably be exempted. So, on the low end, AB matches up fairly well with what I was looking for.

- And now the biggest difference: Slower Stealth units. I don't make them pay unless they are over TMM 2, so there are a bunch of units I don't touch that get walloped by AB. for example, the Vulpes, Lao Hu 4E, and Goliath 3L. A big chunk of the units that AB is adding 10PV or more than I do are stealth units. I'm not saying this is wrong, just a place where there is a big difference.

In general, the AB idea seems like it is adding more PV overall than I was expecting, especially when I compare it to the idea that TMM is anti-skill and price it accordingly. The big thing it does that I wasn't thinking about is to add a significant amount of PV to units that have moderate speed/TMM but put out a lot of damage, and to really clobber Stealth heavies and assaults. So, if you are a Liao fan, this will suck for you, as a bunch of your premier large stealth mechs are about to get more expensive! The stealth side effect might be justified, but 'TMM 2 + guns' seems like it might be getting too much added to the PV. Actually, it might be just a bit too aggressive in general, but that is based on what I personally feel TMM is worth and how the numbers looked when I tried to turn that idea into some math.

I can email out my modified spreadsheet if you want to see what I was looking at.
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 01:10:17 by sadlerbw »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #76 on: 20 July 2016, 01:17:06 »
sadler: thanks for taking the time to give things a good going over.  The spreadsheet link has been the same since the thread started regardless of what post it appeared in: it's just a matter of when you downloaded it, since I last updated it an hour or so ago.

I'll take a look at the units you mention under my system and see if they hold up to a MathTech testing (average damage per round based on total defense) against equivalent units.  After all, it's not enough to say that there's a difference, but to show that one version or the other is more accurate.  But this kind of feedback is great.  And yes, please feel free to PM me your spreadsheet.  Thanks again.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #77 on: 20 July 2016, 01:24:57 »
My suggestions are untested true,  but increase the PV of the target group of units on about the same scale as any other Idea for PV modification.  Only advantage to my Idea is that it borrows from an already existing mechanic (The brawler modifier) in a straight forward calculation rather then introduce a new and more complicated mechanic.  Besides, the real pain in the butt is scrolling down all 6000 lines to copy the new set of formulas into the cells.


An example of what I meant about using the largest movement distance for the defensive modifier is the WHM-11T Warhammer.   Its an 8/10j  unit.   The Defense modifier in the spread sheet considers it a +1.   I think it should be considered a +2 defense mod for its 10 movement even if it is jump movement.   Similar problems would crop up for say a 10"/20"j  (8 improved jump jets and a partial wing.)   Or the dread 2"/20"j Mechanical jump booster monstrosity.

Spread sheet error?
Nighthawk Pa(L) Mk. XXX
I think the total defense mod is missing the STL modifier.

Ha.  People posting in between my postings.

Hauberk battle armor.  The AB modifier shouldn't be applied here I think.  MAS is a kind of stealth to my mind.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #78 on: 20 July 2016, 02:23:35 »
My suggestions are untested true,  but increase the PV of the target group of units on about the same scale as any other Idea for PV modification.  Only advantage to my Idea is that it borrows from an already existing mechanic (The brawler modifier) in a straight forward calculation rather then introduce a new and more complicated mechanic.

I don't think it's that complicated: it only takes a few lines written out.  Looking more closely at your ideas, they start at +3 where a huge penalty kicks in.  As nckestrel pointed out to me, implementing a big jump at any one point creates one hell of a sweet spot for units, where suddenly everything jumps hugely and so +2 becomes the place to be for affordable yet still effective units.  It's why the AB modifier scales per defense mod (well, other than at +1, because +1 is nice but not that nice).

Quote
Besides, the real pain in the butt is scrolling down all 6000 lines to copy the new set of formulas into the cells.

Not sure what program your using, but for Excel that takes about five seconds no matter how long the column is.

Quote
An example of what I meant about using the largest movement distance for the defensive modifier is the WHM-11T Warhammer.   Its an 8/10j  unit.   The Defense modifier in the spread sheet considers it a +1.   I think it should be considered a +2 defense mod for its 10 movement even if it is jump movement.   Similar problems would crop up for say a 10"/20"j  (8 improved jump jets and a partial wing.)   Or the dread 2"/20"j Mechanical jump booster monstrosity.

Ah, yeah, I see what you mean now.  I was puzzling over just what to do with that earlier so I left it alone, but really, the higher mod should apply.  I'll update the sheet to reflect this.

Quote
Spread sheet error?
Nighthawk Pa(L) Mk. XXX
I think the total defense mod is missing the STL modifier.

Yep.  The text read STI, rather than STL, so the sheet wasn't seeing stealth.  Naughty goings-on in the Star League, methinks.  Corrected; thanks.

Quote
Hauberk battle armor.  The AB modifier shouldn't be applied here I think.  MAS is a kind of stealth to my mind.

MAS outright replaces TMM at all ranges, instead of scaling up and down like Stealth does depending on the range.  If a unit is being charged for it, it's because the MAS is giving them a bonus all the time, and they get to standstill and get a to-hit bonus to boot.  I think that's worth it.
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 02:31:57 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #79 on: 20 July 2016, 03:18:41 »
Oh good.  Because the Concept "Mechanical Jump Booster" and "Tri-pod"  crossed my mind.  Wonder if anyone has posted one of those...

Ok,  an example of the short ranged Hole in the current AB system.

clan VTOL
4 short Damage,  2 Armor,  2 Structure.  36v movement.  Comes out to 21 points using current experimental PV models.

Same Chassis but with Medium range.
4 Short, 4 medium, 2 armor, 2 structure.  36v movement.  49 points.

At that speed,  the fact that it can hit at Medium range is subsumed by its raw mobility.  The short ranged variant is probably under valued a bit.  While the Medium variant is over valued.  (One on one, yes the med variant can stay out of range.  In a force on force, the short ranged variant can cover its force in a defensive envelope.  A medium ranged attacker can not move into medium range without the short ranged version closing to short range in reaction.  21 points effectively counters more then twice its value of the opposition.   Terms and Initiative may apply.)


Fall asleep for a few hours, come up with more thoughts....

MAS being included in the AB multiplier works under a "This unit is persistent on the battlefield" kind of thinking,  but fails compared to units that get their Defense mod based on their mobility. (Where the unit is both Persistent, and mobile enough to wield its firepower more effectively.)  Also, when I think MAS, I think Battle armor most of the time.  No standstill bonus for them.

Going up the thread a bit, Xotl suggested using only the movement TMM for the AB calculation.  I think that is the right way to go, since it represents the value of the trifecta of Firepower, Speed, and Defense.
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 10:30:51 by Thunder »

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #80 on: 20 July 2016, 10:37:05 »
select the top cell in the column and hit CTRL+SHIFT+[down arrow], that will select all the contiguous cells in the column. Then you can use your preferred method to copy the formula into it. Personally, I like to put the formula in the first cell then use CTRL+d to fill down!

Anyway, Xotl, I'll PM you my spreadsheet (or at least the formulas!) tonight when I get home.

Now, raw data aside, I think your formula taking Stealth into account is probably a good thing. Any ability that lets you carry a +to-hit mod around with you is certainly a force multiplier. However, I must admit I haven't played any AS games with stealth units yet, so I don't have much experience with just how AB they are. My gut is telling me some of them are getting too big of a % increase in PV, but I'd have to MathWarrior a little to sanity check it. I may try to do that tonight as well.

I understand the comment about an arbitrary cutoff (mine is TMM 2) creating a sweet spot just below it, and this is certainly what happened when I compared my numbers to the AB numbers: TMM 2 with a boat load of damage became one of the most common places where I was costing units way less than AB did. However, I'm not sure they NEEDED to have as much PV added as they did. Did they need some PV added? Maybe, but some of them were pretty big % changes. I actually experimented with making my TMM calculations provide PV rebates to units with TMM 1 and 0, like the Skill adjustment does, to help get rid of the TMM 2 sweet spot. Unfortunately it got weird with TMM 0 units because many of them have other 'stuff' going on that makes TMM 0 not as bad as it sounds. It did help with TMM 1 mechs and vehicles though. Of course, all of that hinges on the idea that TMM 2 is average or normal, and that was just an opinion on my part, not a fact.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #81 on: 20 July 2016, 10:47:16 »
Ok, an example of the short ranged Hole in the current AB system.

Looking for examples of that short-range hole, I see perhaps the Dasher H and Phantom E are the only ones that actually exist, with the Dasher definitely being the worst.  On the one hand, it's a couple of edge cases.  On the other hand, the Dasher is hardly an obscure mech, and more could appear at any time.  Not sure what to do, though a quick exception/kludge could patch it (if the unit has no medium range damage, but has a move of 20" or more, use its short range damage value instead; I dislike that sort of thing, but perhaps needs must).

Quote
MAS being included in the AB multiplier works under a "This unit is persistent on the battlefield" kind of thinking,  but fails compared to units that get their Defense mod based on their mobility. (Where the unit is both Persistent, and mobile enough to wield its firepower more effectively.)  Also, when I think MAS, I think Battle armor most of the time.  No standstill bonus for them.

Going up the thread a bit, Xotl suggested using only the movement TMM for the AB calculation.  I think that is the right way to go, since it represents the value of the trifecta of Firepower, Speed, and Defense.

I'm not aware of battle armour not getting the standstill bonus: where is this?  But in any case, you raise a good point: since yes, this modifier is designed to capture the effects of mobile firepower, I will switch to TMM.  Sheet will be updated in a few minutes and we can take a look again.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #82 on: 20 July 2016, 10:58:04 »
I'm not aware of battle armour not getting the standstill bonus: where is this? 
Part of the same footnote as them not paying jump to-hit modifiers.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #83 on: 20 July 2016, 11:46:25 »
Nckestrel is wise to suggest a sliding scale rather than a cut off.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #84 on: 20 July 2016, 12:28:21 »
A question:  Do WiGes pay for the same defensive bonus (airborne target) as VTOLs?  I know they get it when they're airborne and like VTOLs they can technically lose that bonus by landing.... but unlike VTOLs a WiGE like a Hiryo serving as a BA taxi will actually go ahead and land quite a bit of the time during gameplay...

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #85 on: 20 July 2016, 15:04:52 »
Yes WiGEs do.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #86 on: 20 July 2016, 15:14:04 »
Yes WiGEs do.

Well then, Hiryos occupy a particular corner niche in PV costing.  They can theoretically behave as a VTOL with 16" movment and are costed accordingly, but in actual game play they are often or usually not airborne and only moving 8" turn by turn (as a BA taxi loading, taking off, landing and off-loading turn after turn).
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 15:15:51 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #87 on: 20 July 2016, 17:10:42 »
Well then, Hiryos occupy a particular corner niche in PV costing.  They can theoretically behave as a VTOL with 16" movement and are costed accordingly, but in actual game play they are often or usually not airborne and only moving 8" turn by turn (as a BA taxi loading, taking off, landing and off-loading turn after turn).

I'm afraid it's really not possible to model that kind of granularity.

Okay, things have settled, at least for the moment, so I thought I'd cover some unit comparisons to show how it is I'm reaching the conclusions I am, and hopefully invite others to do the same.

As I mentioned earlier, the PV system assumes all battles are taking place on the moon or Saskatchewan or somewhere similarly flat and dull.  Ignoring the effect of terrain is potentially troublesome, but all units get hit with the same conditions, and there's really no way to assume a standard terrain situation.  In addition, I hate how terrain is modelled in AS and have hopes that it will change; if it does, we can't have PV tied to that, lest we have to do this all over again.  So I hope we can all accept that attempting to factor terrain into a neutral scenario point system is a bad idea.  I also don't assume flak, precision ammo, standing still, and any other items that can alter balances.  Lastly, I am willing to accept some drift: two units of the exact same point total don't have to mutually annihilate each other for me to consider them balanced.  After all, there's numerous ways to rack up PV aside from armour and guns, and different units perform better in different scenarios.  We always have to assume an army-level scale, where a player has enough points that they can occasionally take specialized units that might underperform in some areas (mech combat) but perform above par in others (anti-aircraft or anti-infantry, say).

To check a unit's effectiveness, I filter my spreadsheet to find other units of the same PV and then run a MathTech battle between them.  For example, let's take a look at our Fensalir WiGE (HAG).  sadlerbw brought this one up in the context of how much it had gone up in cost compared to the MUL system (19 points when he brought it up, although now that we're just using TMM as the basis of our adder, it's "only" gone up 13 points, to 59 points.

Let's look at a pair of other 65-point units as challengers:

Code: [Select]
Fensalir Combat WiGE (HAG) CV 4 10"g 8 4 8 6 4 0 65

Daishi (Dire Wolf) E BM 4 6" 10 5 9 9 3 0 65

The Fensalir has a higher defense modifier, is faster, and does more damage at long range.  If it wants, all other things being equal (which we always assume), it can keep the fight at long range and thrash the Dire Wolf.  It will need 9s to hit (about 1 in 4 shots; divide 100 by the percentage chance to hit), while the Daishi will only hit on 11s (about every twelfth shot).  Win goes to the Fensalir.

What about medium range?  Well, each side needs 2 less to hit.  As 2D6 is a curve, that does not drop things equally: the Daishi is still much worse off.  The Fensalir is going to hit about every second round (once every 1.7 attacks, actually, or about three hits every five rounds). The Daishi is going to hit once every four rounds.  However, the Daishi does more damage, and can take more.

Fensalir needs 7s (58.33%).  6 damage = 5 rounds to win (3 hits, 18 damage)
Daishi needs 9s    (27.77%).  9 damage = 8 rounds to win (2 hits, 18 damage)

The Fensalir will still likely win, though it's not at all impossible for the Daishi; it just has to beat the odds and connect earlier.  There's also the possibility of a critical for the Daishi (since its first hit goes internal) or a motive hit, neither of which are to be taken lightly, but overall, the Fensalir appears to be the better combat machine here.

On to our next challenger:

Code: [Select]
Fensalir Combat WiGE (HAG) CV 4 10"g 8 4 8 6 4 0 65

Kodiak II 2 BM 4 8" 10 3 8 8 6 3 65

Similar scenario as before: the Fensalir has more speed and more defense, though less long-range firepower.  Still, it will handily win at long range, because the Kodiak will again only hit once every twelve rounds on average, which means an estimated 36 rounds to victory.  Though the Kodiak's second hit around turn 24 would force motive and critical checks, the Fensalir will have it by turn 16 or so unless the Kodiak's first hit causes a bad motive hit.

At medium range:

Fensalir needs 7s (58.33%).  6 damage = 5 rounds to win (3 hits, 18 damage).  This is a little iffy: the Kodiak will likely recover at least 4 points of armour thanks to its BHJ3, which isn't enough to save it.  However, if it has one extra turn of healing, due to a touch of bad rolling on the Fensalir's part or just how its hits are spaced out, it does recover the armour it needs to keep in the fight a bit longer.  However, this still probably won't allow it to win, and of course, there's also criticals to consider....
Kodiak needs 9s   (27.77%).  8 damage = 8 rounds to win (2 hits, 16 damage).  First hit does not go internal, although a motive hit is possible.  Overheat is not likely to help.

Not complete dominance, but overall I'd say the Fensalir is the better brawler here.  And now it's 59 points instead of 65.  I definitely have no problems raising it up from its current MUL 46-point cost.  Even with this increase it appears a bit undercosted.


Feel free to run your own comparisons.  If you find something interesting (either confirming or breaking the existing point totals), post your results here.  This is what I'll be doing to stress test the system some more.  In particular, I'm curious about cheap units: how does the peasant horde work out against units of quality?
« Last Edit: 20 July 2016, 18:33:08 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #88 on: 20 July 2016, 17:16:56 »
The Kodiak in your example, and the Kodiak II 2 in your code box are... not the same.  The Kodiak II 2 handily out-duels the Fensalir at long range. :)
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #89 on: 20 July 2016, 17:27:54 »
Oops, corrected.  The Kodiak still probably loses, however.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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