PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted

[Xotl]

As people have been discussing since the Alpha Strike PV system was released, units with high defense mods seem to be undercosted thanks to the Defense Factor being only 10%, seeing how hard it is to hit them (i.e. the bonus you get from having high mods is a hell of a lot more than 10%).  Nckestrel and I have been going over the issue for a while, and with Adrian Gideon's blessing we're previewing our intentions here.

The main changes are three:

• The jump defense mod is removed from most units.  Exception: infantry and units with damage values in all range brackets of 0 (in both cases, they have nothing to lose by jumping).  All units still pay the standard 0.5 PV for jump capability, however.  Still, this means a few units do drop in cost.
  
• Units with a defense mod of +3 or +4 raise their Defense Factor from 10% to 25%
• Units with a defense mod of +5 or higher raise their Defense Factor from 25% to 50%

As this will change a lot of units, we'd value your opinion and feedback.  Does this solve the problem?  Does it create any new ones?  What do you think?  Be specific please: we need detail here.  Gut feelings alone are not helpful.

Via the link below you can download a spreadsheet that has all the point values for most units in the game as modified by the changes above, side by side with the current system's PVs (as seen on the MUL).  You can compare them to get an idea of the scale of the change.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/px3fu6669e40jzu/Alpha%20Strike%20PV%20-%20Output.xlsx?dl=0

Thanks for your time.


EDIT: the above spreadsheet link is still good, but the proposal has changed.  The current proposal is:

• The jump defense mod is removed from most units.  Exception: infantry, and units with damage values in all range brackets of 0 (in both cases, they have nothing to lose by jumping).  However, all units still pay the standard 0.5 PV for jump capability.  This means a few units do drop in cost.
• Units with a defense mod of +3 or higher have a Defense Factor of 25% instead of the usual 10%.
• If a unit's TMM is higher than 1, then multiply its medium range damage x (its TMM - 1).  If it has no medium range damage,  but has a TMM higher than 2, instead multiply its short range damage x (its TMM - 2).

[Scotty]

A clarification first: Does that mean +3 and +4 TMM units have the same DIR, resulting in the same defense cost (and a minor difference based on MV)?

Feedback second: I think I've been pretty clear on this board about my opinions on fast units and their PVs.  In 90% of cases, the TMM is secondary to the ability to dictate range, force the initiative without actually winning it, and occupy prime cover before slower movers can get there.  As part of that I'd make some changes to terrain as well, but I'll leave the actual mechanical implementation of that out of this thread, since this one should be about the proposed ideas.

Alternate feedback: percent modifiers on units that have very lower armor/structure values doesn't increase PV as much as you might think.  A 'Mech with 4/3 A/S has a (before DIR) defensive value of 11.  The difference between this unit at +1 TMM and +3 TMM (assuming that "increased to 25%" means that the mod goes from 1.3 to 1.45) is 12.1 versus 14.3 in the current system, and 12.1 versus 15.95.  Overall change: a maximum of two points at that level, which is already pretty high in terms of A/S for these kinds of units.

Take the Locust -5W2.  It has a (pre DIR) defense value of 5.  With current DIR, it's 7 defensive PV.  With the modified DIR, it's 8 (assuming I have it right and TMM +4 would be 1.6).  That's the definition of negligible.

EDIT: I don't want this to come off as too negative.  It's a good discussion to have, and any implementation is better than nothing.

[Xotl]

No problem with being negative: if you don't think it works, we want to know.

We're aware of the fact that units with very little armour and structure don't see a huge point increase: we've been discussing this for a long time.  But after a certain point there's only so much you can charge for something with 1 or 2 pts of armour and 1 pt of structure.  We just want to bring things closer to accurate, without overcharging and/or breaking things elsewhere in the system.  The Locust -5W2 goes from 17 PV to 20 (check the spreadsheet I attached).  Look at units such as the Dragon -7K and see how the effect plays out for beefier speedy units.

As for the ability to be hit at all being secondary to movement, while I'm aware of your opinions on that, I'm afraid you're the only one to express that opinion that I'm aware of, whereas defence mods have been raised many many times over for a couple of years (that and I know for a fact I messed up defence mod costs when originally writing the system, as I explained here -- see the asterisked portion at the very bottom of the post).  I have felt the same as you regarding how terrain mods work in AS since it came out as well but as you say, that's not a PV issue.

[Scotty]

As for the ability to be hit at all being secondary to movement, while I'm aware of your opinions on that, I'm afraid you're the only one to express that opinion that I'm aware of, whereas defence mods have been raised many many times over for a couple of years (that and I know for a fact I messed up defence mod costs when originally writing the system, as I explained here.  I have felt the same as you regarding how terrain mods work in AS since it came out as well but as you say, that's not a PV issue.

But that's the fun part!  If you value MV higher in the conversion process, you make TMM more expensive too, without having to fuss with multiplicative armor/structure calculations.  A faster 'Mech is going to inherently have a higher (or at worst equal) TMM, after all.  This also has the beneificial side-effect of increasing the value of the most egregious offenders (the aforementioned Locust, or the Locust IIC) irrespective of their low armor/structure that might let them continue to skate under the thresholds.

Via the link below you can download a spreadsheet that has all the values for most units in the game as modified by the changes above.  You can go over them and compare them to the MUL values to get an idea of the scale of the change.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Battletech/Alpha%20Strike%20PV%20-%20Output.xlsx

I think you'll have to explain the modifications a bit more clearly.  "Increased to 25%" reads a lot to me like the change from +2 to +3 jumps from 1.2 to 1.45.  After thinking about it a bit, I realized that could mean that going from +2 to +3 TMM means that it jumps from 1.2 to 1.75, but that seems like it penalizes the jump from +2 to +3 significantly more than it penalizes the jump from +3 to +4 (1.75 to 2).

As an aside, does this change anything for Stealth Armor?

[Xotl]

This came up in the last thread we discussed this, but you have to consider defence as a total package, not just TMM, which is why I keep saying "defence mod" (and which is how the system will consider things).  With the battle armor, protomech, VTOL and WiGE mods, as well as Stealth and MAS, there's a lot of ways of getting defence mods beyond TMM, even if TMM is the biggest component.  If you don't consider it as a package, slow BA with stealth (to pick one example) slips under the radar.

As for fixed values based on speed, a fixed ratio will not work.  Defence multiplies the value of armour and structure: it is absolutely not a linear progression.  Every point of armour is worth that much more the harder you are to hit.

To clarify on the math, the Defense Factor by default is 10% right now (multiply the cost of armour + structure by 1.1).  With the new system, it would remain that for units with a def mod of +0, +1, and +2.  If you have a defence mod of +3 or +4, you would instead multiply by 1.25.  If you have a defence mod of +5 or higher, you would instead multiply by 1.5 (the Cavalry Infiltrator, the worst abuser of this at +7, would go from 17 points as it stands right now to 31 points, for example).

[Scotty]

I doubt we'll reach an agreement here, but oh well.  I do seriously believe that so long as the first 8" of movement, and the 8"of movement that get you up to 24" (the threshold for being able to go from base contact to long range in one move) are valued the exact same there will be some kind of issue with balancing fast things in Alpha Strike.

[Xotl]

I don't understand.  A unit able to move 8" would pay 1 PV for their move and have a Defense Factor of 1.1.  A unit able to move 24" would pay 3 PV for their move and, under this revision, would have a Defense Factor of 1.25 as well.

If you think there's a certain value of speed that is worth more than any other value of speed, that could be discussed, but the above is not at all "the exact same".

[NeonKnight]

First, I not gud at Maths

Second, I see where you are both coming from. I agree with Scotty though, the issue game side wise, seems to be more from speedy mechs that get the benifit from that speed (High TMM to be hit), but spend very little time moving :\

I'm glad to see thoughts are being put into it, I just don;t know what should be done tho.

[Thunder]

This response will be incomplete, its bed time.

There are two parts to Balancing PV.

Defensively you are trying to realize a system In which the limited armor of a highly evasive unit is valued correctly against heavier armor on a non evasive unit.  For example, 5 points of armor on something that evades fire 50% of the time should have the same value as 10 points on something that is hit every time.  Both require the same total amount of firepower to take down give or take a bit.

Offensively,  faster units are more capable of better positioning and defensive maneuver advantage.  The BV system does have an offensive movement factor multiplier.  The PV system lacks this, the closest it has is the Linear increase in PV for movement.  One reason this breaks down, borrowing from the examples above, is that a unit with a 24" move has 9 times the potential locations to move as a unit with only 8" of move.  Give that advantage to someone like Scotty and the paltry increase in offensive PV for the increased movement is more then paid for by the ability to simply avoid your opponents line of sight, or dictate the range.

Two and a half final things for now.
I like the PV system as it is because its simple but reasonably balanced.  Is it worth mucking that up in the name of greater accuracy at the cost of ease of use?

The term DIR keeps being used,  Shouldn't that be the Defense Factor? We are talking about changing the multiplier applied to the armor and structure points quiaff?
And the half, would you be so kind as to throw out some sample examples of how the Defensive point value would be calculated with the new system.

Final Musing.
I had assumed the Defensive PV was borrowed from defensive BV calculations. with the .1 multiplier increase per to hit modifier increase.

[GoldBishop]

Off the top of my head, I don't believe those values would solve the problem - not enough "umph" in the jump to really bring Speedy units up to snuff with the heavier units.  When I get time, I'll try to crunch some numbers later (table currently covered in painting projects).

I'm a fan of how things are - whether I play with Standard Rules, Advanced Rules, Optional Rules, or House Rules.
There are plenty of tactical ways to counter high TMM units without having to "change the system"

As for "other ideas" ?  Just a skewed angle from thinking outside of the box for so long...

Its my understanding that people flock to high TMM units because they often have favorably lower PV costs and can "fit" more of them under a lower PV cap. 
Raise the cap? MORE speedy things is the tendency, even though it is intended for the bigger, badder units the old school players love (cue "stompy robots" theme song).

Suggestion:  What if, instead of making speedy units more expensive, we made bigger units less expensive?

Not sure how I would go about presenting that case, but I hatched the idea not long ago when comparing near-identical BV2s between a clan Light and an InnerSphere Assault.  (and I hate to keep referencing Classic/Standard to compare things, as Combat in both games is always - always - situationally driven)

Again, off the top of my head, if Armor were to cost half as much when calculating DIR (x1 instead of x2) would that help unburden Heavies and Assaults compared to Lights?  I don't propose that its a "end all, fix all" adjustment, but it is my current thought...
<goes downstairs to furiously clean and organize>

[Xotl]

The term DIR keeps being used,  Shouldn't that be the Defense Factor? We are talking about changing the multiplier applied to the armor and structure points quiaff?

Yes, it should be Defense Factor.  My apologies; I've edited my posts above to use the correct terminology.

I have a question for the thread.  While plenty of people have said lights are undercosted, I've never seen anyone say how much they should cost.  If you could give some idea of what you think a few iconic troublemakers should be worth in some way, that might help arrive at a final solution.  For example, this would raise the cost of a Savannah Master from 10 to 12 points.  If this isn't enough, then just how expensive should it be?

Thanks.

[GoldBishop]

I have a question for the thread.  While plenty of people have said lights are undercosted, I've never seen anyone say how much they should cost.  If you could give some idea of what you think a few iconic troublemakers should be worth in some way, that might help arrive at a final solution.  For example, this would raise the cost of a Savannah Master from 10 to 12 points.  If this isn't enough, then just how expensive should it be?

Thanks.

Any resemblance to BV/100 (rounded normally) will be sheer coincidence ;)

[nckestrel]

The issue with lowering armor from x2 to x1, is that it should be worth more than structure.  So you would have to lower structure in order to lower Armor.

[Scotty]

What about 1.5 instead of 2?

@Xotl: not all speed is created equal.  A Vindicator's 8" of movement is worth a lot more than double an Urbanmech's 4".  The Fireball XF's 48" is worth a whole hell of a lot more than 8x a Fafnir's 6", because armor well never even enter the equation, ever, unless the Fireball makes a terrible mistake of judgement.  That gap is enough to move the XF from base contact to outside of long range even if the Fafnir wins initiative and moves to pursue.  The only thing that will ever change that is the map, and you can't balance around maps.

Not all speed is created equal, and I think it should be costed more appropriately.

[GoldBishop]

The issue with lowering armor from x2 to x1, is that it should be worth more than structure.  So you would have to lower structure in order to lower Armor.

Agreed.   Like I said, its not the "fix all" fix -- more of a half-thought.  I was thinking out loud in an attempt at lowering the cost of Heavies and Assaults.  Sorry if I mislead you.


Reason for my half thought: comparing an Atlast to a Locust.  Depending on the variants, the Locust will spend between 2 and 6 points for its Armor... compared to the Atlas, who will be paying 18-20 pts.  Even with Movement multipliers, that gap is still substantial.

In my eyes, slower units use their armor to defend themselves by absorbing blows and "just keep swiming"; lights rely on their speed instead.

Costwise?  I just felt that, with everyone so focused on high TMMs being broken, was anyone looking at the other end of the spectrum?  Can we fix Assaults to be cheaper instead?

[Xotl]

Alternate solutions are fine, and fresh thinking might solve it better than I've proposed, so that's no problem.  It's just that there's a series of issues, and any change has to ensure that it doesn't cascade throughout the system.

For example, armour is scaled throughout the entire system based on the original x2 cost for mechs.  Change that and you have to change vehicles, aero: every unit in the game.  And then check all over again for balance.

Speed adjustments are a potential solution.  But that ignores units that are slow but still manage to have high defence mods, like stealth battle armour or worse: jumping stealth battle armour.  Right now some BA squads are real pains.

What I really need to see is some idea of what people think a unit should be worth.  As I mentioned above, that a Locust -1V goes from 14 to 16 PV may not be enough, but a post just stating that with no backing is not very helpful when we're attempting to hash out a tangible solution here across 6000+ units.  Assuming slow units stay costed the same, how much should any of these annoying fast units be?

[Xotl]

@Xotl: not all speed is created equal.  A Vindicator's 8" of movement is worth a lot more than double an Urbanmech's 4".  The Fireball XF's 48" is worth a whole hell of a lot more than 8x a Fafnir's 6", because armor well never even enter the equation, ever, unless the Fireball makes a terrible mistake of judgement.  That gap is enough to move the XF from base contact to outside of long range even if the Fafnir wins initiative and moves to pursue.  The only thing that will ever change that is the map, and you can't balance around maps.

Not all speed is created equal, and I think it should be costed more appropriately.

I appreciate that, but raising the cost of defence raises the cost of high speed effectively.  For example, under this revision, a Fireball XF would increase in cost to 27 PV.  The Fafnir would stay the same at 55 PV.  Do you feel that a 2-1 ratio is still too low, that two Fireball -XFs are worth more than a single Fafnir?  Bearing in mind that this isn't happening in a vacuum, and that each guy still has some 250-300 points to spend on other units?  If so, how much more?

[Maingunnery]

Quite a few other players (myself included) have little difficulty countering fast units. But if TPTB really want to make it easier to counter, then I would ask if there a way to make the means to counter them cheaper or more accessible?

[Scotty]

I appreciate that, but raising the cost of defence raises the cost of high speed effectively.  For example, under this revision, a Fireball XF would increase in cost to 27 PV.  The Fafnir would stay the same at 55 PV.  Do you feel that a 2-1 ratio is still too low, that two Fireball -XFs are worth more than a single Fafnir?  Bearing in mind that this isn't happening in a vacuum, and that each guy still has some 250-300 points to spend on other units?  If so, how much more?

I think this is a solution that works on the surface, but doesn't do enough to fix the underlying issues.  It's a band-aid on a head wound that needs stitches.

But then:

I doubt we'll reach an agreement here, but oh well.

As an alternate suggestion: would increasing the thresholds for higher TMMs appreciably change the issue?  If instead of +2 being (effectively) 10-12", it were 10-16", with a corresponding rework of higher tiers?

That and a change to terrain would bring to-hut numbers down significantly, especially among the most common units.

[Joel47]

I'm definitely in favor of #1 (removing the jump cost), now that jump movement causes a to-hit penalty.
I think the Offense part of the PV calculation should include a small modifier for unit speed. (Yes, small -- the Fireball vs Fafnir example is, I believe, a red herring, since it assumes a 1v1 that is, at best, a corner case. Assuming ordinary map sizes and levels of map population, it's rare for a unit to be able to get out of range of everything.) Given that C3 is a +0.1, and that's essentially dictating range, I would start by adding a +0.1 for units with the ability to move more than 18" (edge of short to edge of medium), and another +0.1 for the ability to move more than 36". That plus the new defense changes might be a bit much (assault 'mechs standing still in partial cover are still going to be stronger than light, fast units), but I do agree that some increase in the defense cost of high-TMM units is warranted.

[Nahuris]

What about 1.5 instead of 2?

@Xotl: not all speed is created equal.  A Vindicator's 8" of movement is worth a lot more than double an Urbanmech's 4".  The Fireball XF's 48" is worth a whole hell of a lot more than 8x a Fafnir's 6", because armor well never even enter the equation, ever, unless the Fireball makes a terrible mistake of judgement.  That gap is enough to move the XF from base contact to outside of long range even if the Fafnir wins initiative and moves to pursue.  The only thing that will ever change that is the map, and you can't balance around maps.

Not all speed is created equal, and I think it should be costed more appropriately.

I would agree, except for one thing -- weapon range ---- moving 48 inches is kind of worthless, if you are doing nothing but running around the edge of the board, because you have to close to weapon range to do anything, putting you in weapon range of units that can one shot you. Making this a difficult juggle --- as making light units more expensive just reduces the game to sessions of Turrettech Assaults, and postage stamp battlefields, so that they can get in range of each other, within a reasonable time frame.

That has always been the problem with lights and mediums --- in the Universe, the medium mech is the standard unit -- on the table, it's the Assault mech that is the standard, with heavy cavalry designs in support, for the win. When your 1 point damage at only up to medium range, light mech, that can be one-shot killed costs the same as something that can do 3 damage at long range, and still use cover to stay at that open range... it kind of dictates what you see on the field.

I'd think a more elegant solution would be that you have to move at least half of your movement distance to get your full movement mod, with it being halved, rounded down, if you do not. That takes out the people that move one inch for a +4, while hiding in trees......

If not, then don't expect a lot of people to bother with anything light.....
Once my Raijins and Nexus designs start costing as much as my Omega, I may as well just field all Omegas or Archangels, and play the combined Gun you at Range game...... by spending the points it would cost for fast spotters on my pilots in the Assaults, instead. Once it costs more for a spotter, than it does to improve a pilot, I just improve the pilot, and get the same effect of a C3i spotter that can NEVER be blocked by ECM, since it's the actual gunnery skill.

Nahuris

[Descronan]

Looking over the spreadsheet at a few of my favorite fast units, I think this goes a long way to balancing them. My only concern is on the method of your calculations. Thank you for being open to this change. I know it must be a pretty big pain to rewrite the formula and then update the MUL.

To me, the percentage cost should be based on the effective bonus granted by the TMM. Using the probability curve of 2d6 we could assume the following:

TMM = %
0 = 0
1 = 2.77
2 = 8.33
3 = 16.66
4 = 27.77
5 = 41.66

Movement is not simply about the TMM, but also about the ability to maneuver on the field. I can see a multiplier equal to the number of inches of movement also. For example, each 2" movement increases the % by +1.

Hex   TMM   TMM%   Def Mod
0   0   0   0
1   0   0   1
2   0   0   2
3   1   2.77   5.77
4   1   2.77   6.77
5   2   8.33   13.33
6   2   8.33   14.33
7   3   16.66   23.66
8   3   16.66   24.66
9   3   16.66   25.66
10   4   27.77   37.77
11   4   27.77   38.77
12   4   27.77   39.77
13   4   27.77   40.77
14   4   27.77   41.77
15   4   27.77   42.77
16   4   27.77   43.77
17   4   27.77   44.77
18   5   41.66   59.66
19   5   41.66   60.66
20   5   41.66   61.66
21   5   41.66   62.66

Just throwing this out there for a suggestion. It seems pretty close to what you're attempting to do and I think it is closer to the in-game impact.

[Scotty]

Regardless of the change to PV calculation I feel strongly about changing terrain to remove the +2 hit mods from Partial Cover and Woods.  Higher modifiers inherently benefit high TMMs more by pushing results to the higher end of the bell curve where relative frequency matters a lot more than naked chances.  Reducing terrain modifiers will prevent it from getting ridiculous, and might help with this problem more than it looks like on its face.  Personal suggestion is to change Partial Cover to +1 and damage reduction of 1 (to simulate leg hits; 1 damage is reduced to 0*, 0* damage is reduced to 0), and woods to a normal +1.

[Maingunnery]

Regardless of the change to PV calculation I feel strongly about changing terrain to remove the +2 hit mods from Partial Cover and Woods.  Higher modifiers inherently benefit high TMMs more by pushing results to the higher end of the bell curve where relative frequency matters a lot more than naked chances.  Reducing terrain modifiers will prevent it from getting ridiculous, and might help with this problem more than it looks like on its face.  Personal suggestion is to change Partial Cover to +1 and damage reduction of 1 (to simulate leg hits; 1 damage is reduced to 0*, 0* damage is reduced to 0), and woods to a normal +1.

Slower units benefit relatively more from terrain to-hit modifiers, it is also essential for some anti-TMM tactics such as a wood-fort formation.

[Scotty]

Fast units benefit more if TMMs are unaffected by terrain.  The difference between going from 7 to 9 (medium range, +1 TMM, partial cover) is significantly less effective than going from 9 to 11 (same conditions, +3 TMM).  Long range makes it even more evident, with a 9 to 11 versus 11 to completely unhittable.

Everything else being equal, an equal adjustment on the 2d6 bell curve benefits the one that started higher to begin with.  If there's some mechanism for getting a terrain's bonus but not suffering from the penalties (so basically just partial cover; you can't get woods benefit without paying woods penalties) it benefits slower things, but slower things are less likely to be able to get to good cover in the first place than fast things, and less likely to be able to keep it against fast things.

[Xotl]

I'm definitely in favor of #1 (removing the jump cost), now that jump movement causes a to-hit penalty.
I think the Offense part of the PV calculation should include a small modifier for unit speed. ... Given that C3 is a +0.1, and that's essentially dictating range, I would start by adding a +0.1 for units with the ability to move more than 18" (edge of short to edge of medium), and another +0.1 for the ability to move more than 36".

Interesting idea.  I'll mess around with it.

I think this is a solution that works on the surface, but doesn't do enough to fix the underlying issues.  It's a band-aid on a head wound that needs stitches.

Could you be more specific?  How much should a Fireball -XF be, or whatever mech you prefer?  If you were to mod speed, how much would you mod it?  You keep saying a defense factor modification doesn't work, but without specific detail as to how it fails I can't really address your concerns.  I need hard information if anything is going to get done.

But then:
As an alternate suggestion: would increasing the thresholds for higher TMMs appreciably change the issue?  If instead of +2 being (effectively) 10-12", it were 10-16", with a corresponding rework of higher tiers?

That and a change to terrain would bring to-hit numbers down significantly, especially among the most common units.

I don't think changing the range brackets TMM criteria of the game is on the table, though I'll certainly check.  In general, however, I'd like folks to focus on PV adjustments.  We can tackle to-hit mods themselves some other time, in some other thread.

[Scotty]

Not range brackets, TMM criteria.  Dissociate it from normal TW walk speed thresholds, remake it for Alpha Strike.

[Xotl]

Not range brackets, TMM criteria.  Dissociate it from normal TW walk speed thresholds, remake it for Alpha Strike.

Sorry, my bad.  I knew what you meant.

[Scotty]

Radical idea: include MV as a multiplicative modifier on offense.  Movement is the single greatest determinant for range, after all.  Slow juggernauts would be largely unaffected, but the fast strikers with the guns to be dangerous would go up.

[Klat]

Radical idea: include MV as a multiplicative modifier on offense.  Movement is the single greatest determinant for range, after all.  Slow juggernauts would be largely unaffected, but the fast strikers with the guns to be dangerous would go up.

I like this with the idea of removing the jump modifier.

To be fair I hadn't given this much thought until recently but I ran into something that struck me as off; a PNT-9R has the same PV as a JR-7D. I'm far more worried about a Jenner than a Panther