PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted

[Xotl]

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

Well, under the revision I'd like people to look at, a -9R Panther would be 19 PV to the JR7-D's 22.  Please take a look at the attached spreadsheet to see how problem units and what you feel are mismatches have worked out.

[Klat]

Well, under the revision I'd like people to look at, a -9R Panther would be 19 PV to the JR7-D's 22.  Please take a look at the attached spreadsheet to see how problem unit's and what you feel are mismatches have worked out.

I apologize, I should've looked at the spreadsheet first. I like the change in PV between the Panther and Jenner

Obviously I'll need to go over it a bit but my initial assessment is that it looks good.

[GoldBishop]

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.

Dammit, Scotty get out of my head!

My **next** suggestion wasn't a multiplier, but perhaps a substitute? [in keeping the original system] Swap MF for Size Modifier for OFV (for Battlemechs) ...or maybe just go with MF and eliminate Size Modifier altogether?  Its awfully selective (pointless for Protomechs which have no size other than 1, and both Infantry and CV are already ignored).

Sample Atlas goes down 2 PV (SizeMod) and up 0.75 PV (MF) ~ -1.25 PV overall
Sample Locust goes down 0.5 PV (Size Mod) and up 2.25 PV (MV) ~ +1.75 overall

A multiplier will, of course, be bigger... but a soft bump like this one was what I was working on.
(Would be that much more if the new/suggested multipliers still get factored in for DIR/DFV)

[Maingunnery]

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

Changing the range brackets might do more for you. For example if short range was 1-9 hexes, then many fast movers would need to get in short range to fire.

[Thunder]

Expanding on my original premise that 10 points of armor with 0% evade is worth the same value as 5 points of armor with 50% evade.

Assuming a base to hit number of 4.

Total Defense factor (TMM + type, flight or stealth bonus's)  To  Defense factor multipliers

Total To hit Modifier	Defense factor multiplier
-2	1
-1	1.03
0	1.09
+1	1.2
+2	1.38
+3	1.71
+4	2.4
+5	3.6
+6	6
+7	12
+8	36

Yes, this causes units combing maximum movement with things like stealth armor to potentially be every expensive.  What did you expect your bid for a nearly untouchable unit to cost?  The multipliers are based on 36/(Number of rolls on a 2D6 that are hits).


Offensively  I like Descronan's suggestion of increasing the value by 1% per 2 inches of move enough to borrow it for my needs.
So, The Offensive PV will by multiplied by (1 + .005 * inches moved) before its thrown into the determine final PV step.

Hmmmm.  And move the defensive movement factor calculation to the offensive side.  (This gives a bit of that geometric offensive value increase for movement I noted earlier.)

Examples:
Fireball XF
(1 short damage + (1*2) Medium damage +.5 Size +6 "Offensive movement")*1.24 = 11.78
(2*2 armor +1 structure )*3.6 (+5 Defense factor multiplier) = 18
Total PV with these Ideas in place: 29.78 round to 30.

Fafnir FNR-5
5 short + (6*2) Medium +2 long +2 size +.75 movement)*1.03 = 22.4
(20+8)*1.2 = 33.6
2 ECM
Total PV with these Ideas in place: 58

[Xotl]

My **next** suggestion wasn't a multiplier, but perhaps a substitute? [in keeping the original system] Swap MF for Size Modifier for OFV (for Battlemechs) ...or maybe just go with MF and eliminate Size Modifier altogether?  Its awfully selective (pointless for Protomechs which have no size other than 1, and both Infantry and CV are already ignored).

Size modifier is selective because size only applies, mechanically, to a few unit types.  It is applied to all units for which it has a gameplay effect (adds to melee damage).

Sample Atlas goes down 2 PV (SizeMod) and up 0.75 PV (MF) ~ -1.25 PV overall
Sample Locust goes down 0.5 PV (Size Mod) and up 2.25 PV (MV) ~ +1.75 overall

A multiplier will, of course, be bigger... but a soft bump like this one was what I was working on.
(Would be that much more if the new/suggested multipliers still get factored in for DIR/DFV)

Using your numbers, an Atlas (presumably -D) would be 51 PV and a Locust (presumably -1V) would be 15.

Under the revision, an Atlas would be 52 PV and a Locust would be 16.

However, your system would require much more recalculating of units (the revision is only targeted at speedy units; slow ones are unchanged) and removes an aspect of a unit's melee ability in PV calculations, and does nothing to deal with slow but hard to hit units.  Ultimately I'm not clear as to what it's supposed to accomplish that the proposed revision would not.

[Xotl]

Expanding on my original premise that 10 points of armor with 0% evade is worth the same value as 5 points of armor with 50% evade.

Assuming a base to hit number of 4.

I had raised something similar in the way of defense mods when first hashing out what was wrong with the original system.  The mathematical progression is below, as taken from an earlier thread (assuming a Skill Rating of 4 and Medium Range, so a base 6+ to-hit):

A +1 defensive mod (meaning you now need 7+ to hit) takes you from hitting 72% of the time to 58% of the time.  This isn't a 14% increase in difficulty (72 - 58), but a 20% increase (58 / 72).  Following the same mathematical process:
+2 (need   8+, 41.66% chance to hit) is 30% harder to hit than +1.
+3 (need   9+, 27.77% chance to hit) is 35% harder to hit than +2.  It is 52.5% harder to hit than +1.
+4 (need 10+, 16.66% chance to hit) is 40% harder to hit than +3.  It is 71.5% harder to hit than +1.
+5 (need 11+,   8.33% chance to hit) is 50% harder to hit than +4.  It is 86% harder to hit than +1.
+6 (need 12+,   2.77% chance to hit) is 65% harder to hit than +5.  It is 95% harder to hit than +1.

As you can see, each point of defence changes the odds.  However, it's difficult to say that the exact values calculated above should be used, because that assumes that defence is in perfect harmony with offence costs, something not easy to determine.  Ultimately, in the interests of keeping it simple I went with just three mods (*1.1, *1.25, and *1.5).  I think that the proposed revision multipliers are a good compromise between addressing the current problem and keeping the process relatively simple while not invalidating PVs for any units with a defence mod of +2 or lower.

I don't like move as a blanket offensive mod because a) it would require recalculating everything, and b) it does nothing for units with no guns that are valuable in other ways (ECM, C3, TAG, BT).

Overall, what you propose seems too small a change between the current move costs and what the revision proposes (e.g. your Fireball -XF is 30, while the one from the revision would be 27 -- yes, it is 10%, but is it really a meaningful difference, i.e. more accurate?).  This is something I'll clarify in my next post.

[Xotl]

Hi folks.  While I appreciate the fervour in which people have proposed their own solutions to the issue, I'd like to emphasize that this thread is intended as a test of the revision actually posted.  I should have been clearer: I absolutely do not mind critiques of the system (quite the opposite: please, I'd love to see them), but IF you feel the proposed revision will not address the problem, AND can demonstrate why, then I'm more than happy to entertain any alternate you might have, IF it is backed by examples and can be show to create a meaningfully different result from the proposed revision (i.e. I'm not looking for a few points difference here and there; I want to see meaningful examples of how one set of units fails under the revision and how that same set would have more accurate results under yours).  Most of the proposals suggested haven't been broken down or tested even by their creators, and I don't have the time to test all of them either.  In short, what I don't want is "how about this or this or what about this", simply because nothing will ever get done that way.  Mainly, I'd like to see your takes on how this proposed revision works or does not.

I'll contribute a few examples of how the changes play out, using before and after PV values.  Again, you can grab the spreadsheet below for the after values, and check the MUL for any before values.

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

Here's some generic troopers / brawlers which don't change in cost, to give a sort of baseline:
Centurion -A: 28 points
Warhammer -6R: 32 points
Marauder -3R: 35 points
Black Knight BL-6: 39 points
Mad Cat Prime: 49 points
Juliano -5A: 48 points
Atlas -D: 52 points

Since the +1 jump mod is no longer counted as part of most units' def mod when calculating how much PV it gets charged (exception: infantry and unarmed units), a few units actually get a little bit cheaper:
Panther -9R: 20 --> 19
Vindicator -1R: 28 --> 27
Enforcer -4R: 27 --> 25
Black Hawk Prime: 37 --> 36
Highlander -732: 50 --> 48

Anything with a +0, +1, or +2 def mod (not including jumping): no change.

Notable units with +3 or +4 mod (not including jumping) (Defence Mod cost goes from 10% to 25%):
Locust -1V: 14 --> 16
Locust IIC: 28 --> 32
Shadow Cat Prime: 31 --> 34
Fenris Prime: 33 --> 38
Grand Dragon -7K: 34 --> 40
Cataphract -4L: 44 --> 53

Savannah Master: 10 --> 12
Dasher Prime: 17 --> 19
Hawk Moth Gunship: 11 --> 13

Notable units with +5, +6, or +7 mod (not including jumping) (Defence Mod cost goes up to 50%):
Achileus Light Armour (WoB): 11 --> 20
ASN-99 Assassin: 26 --> 45
Cavalry Attack Helicopter (Infiltrator): 17 --> 31
Celerity -03-O: 12 --> 18
Kage Light Battle Armour (ECM): 7 --> 13
Warrior -H10 Helicopter: 7 --> 12

Some units save on jumping but also pay more for speed:
Dragonfly Prime: 28 --> 31
Jenner -D: 19 --> 22

So, pull some random duos with the revised costs and match them up: how do you feel about them?  Do you think a Cataphract -4L (53 PV) is worth about the same as an Atlas -D (52 PV), for instance?  At the same time, think about building a 350-point force (ultimately we must consider this as part of how the game is actually played, not only in any sort of WWF cage-match vacuum).  What are you going to pick now?  Are lights still worth it to you?  If so, are they still dominant, if you felt that way about them?  Are there some units now prohibitively expensive (bear in mind with something like the Cavalry, you need 9s to hit at short range, 12 at medium, and 15 at long)?  Are you still tempted to just buy a thousand Savannah Masters, if that's what you did before?  If so, how much should a Savannah Master be to you, and how much would one have to cost before you'd not use it at all?

Specifics are all important if this is to be properly addressed.

[NeonKnight]

Xotl

when you say Def Mod, t what are you refering? A step in the Point Value calculation? Certainly not the unit's TMM.

Because, unless I am really thick, to me, the biggest issue is (pg 139 ASCom), Step 2:

Movement Factor: A unit’s
Movement Factor equals 0.25 points for every 2 inches of Move the unit has. If the unit possesses multiple movement modes, use the one with the highest Move rate. Add 0.5 points to the result if the unit is jump-capable.

and

Step 2a, pg 141:

Defense Factor: Using the Defense Factor Modifiers Table, add together the ground unit’s Movement Modifiers (as it applies to its highest Move rating) to all applicable Type Modifiers listed. For unit types not listed in the table, the Type Modifier is 0. If this sum is less than 1, treat it as a sum of 0. Otherwise, divide the sum by 10. Add 1 to the result in either case to find the unit’s Defense Factor.

Both of those factors alone treat movement (TMM) as a linear scaling affect, when in the game it is not.

As the TMM increases, it becomes harder and hard to get the rolls needed to hit vastly start to outpace the PV

[Xotl]

The original text under Step 2a, p. 141, under the Defense Factor subsection reads:

     Using the Defense Factor Modifiers Table, add together the ground unit’s Movement Modifiers (as it applies to its highest Move rating) to all applicable Type Modifiers listed. For unit types not listed in the table, the Type Modifier is 0. If this sum is less than 1, treat it as a sum of 0. Otherwise, divide the sum by 10. Add 1 to the result in either case to find the unit’s Defense Factor.

This would be changed to:

     Using the Defense Factor Modifiers Table on page 140, find the ground unit’s Movement Modifier (which includes the jump capable modifier if applicable). If the unit has more than one Move rate, use whichever provides the highest total bonus (again, considering any applicable jump modifier). Add any applicable Type and Feature Modifiers. If the total is less than 1, treat it as a sum of 0. If the total is either 1 or 2, multiply the sum by 0.1. If the total is either 3 or 4, multiply the sum by 0.25. If the total is 5 or higher, multiply the sum by 0.5.
     Whatever the above result, add 1 to find the unit’s Defense Factor.

As for the importance of TMM (defense in general really, not just TMM), we know that it's not linear; that's the whole point of this revision, which raises its cost specifically to deal with it.

[Thunder]

Double checking what I think you're doing with the proposed new modifiers:

Total To hit Modifier	Defense factor multiplier
-2	1
-1	1
0	1
+1	1.1
+2	1.2
+3	1.75
+4	2
+5	3.5
+6	4
+7	4.5
+8	5

I think at the highest end, there is still going to be some undervalued units, but overall it matches the values I suggested closely enough that It will work without being too cumbersome.

In other thoughts, any reason the MUL can't generate the PV as a calculated value, reducing the effort required to update when changes like this happen?  (And incidentally calculating the PV for custom units as well insuring accuracy across the player base.)

[Xotl]

In other thoughts, any reason the MUL can't generate the PV as a calculated value, reducing the effort required to update when changes like this happen?  (And incidentally calculating the PV for custom units as well insuring accuracy across the player base.)

I'm not sure: technical questions about the MUL are out of my field, I'm afraid.

[Thunder]

Curses. My evil plan to find skyhigh has been foiled.

   Using the Defense Factor Modifiers Table on page 140, find the ground unit’s Movement Modifier (which includes the jump capable modifier if applicable). If the unit has more than one Move rate, use whichever provides the highest total bonus (again, considering any applicable jump modifier). Add any applicable Type and Feature Modifiers. If the total is less than 1, treat it as a sum of 0. If the total is either 1 or 2, multiply the sum by 0.1. If the total is either 3 or 4, multiply the sum by 0.25. If the total is 5 or higher, multiply the sum by 0.5.
     Whatever the above result, add 1 to find the unit’s Defense Factor.

I'm reading this as:
Find the TMM and add any other modifiers (BA, Stealth, VTOL, etc.)
For example the sum of these modifiers comes out to 3.
3 would then be multiplied by .25  (It is in the 3 to 4 bracket.)  for .75  and then 1 would be added to this, for a total of 1.75  which is then multiplied by the sum of the armor and structure points values.


This post has been edited to remove a blind ally portion of the conversation.  But I figure the above example might be useful.

[Xotl]

You are correct: I misread how you'd structured the table.  I've deleted that part of my post to avoid any further confusion.

[Thunder]

Edits done.

Oddly, the quote I used still includes the jump modifier.   Not including that is still part of the plan?

[Xotl]

Oddly, the quote I used still includes the jump modifier.   Not including that is still part of the plan?

If applicable.  The jump modifier would still apply to infantry (who don't get the jump attack penalty) and units with no attack values (who have nothing to lose by not jumping all the time).

[Scotty]

Like I was saying at the start of the thread, I think this is a solution that's going in the right direction, but 'fixes' the wrong thing (or doesn't fix things in the right way under the hood).  Unfortunately, I don't really have a better alternative whipped up and ready to go, so I'll avoid dragging this off-topic again.

I think that's the most on-topic feedback I've got for it.

[Xotl]

Like I was saying at the start of the thread, I think this is a solution that's going in the right direction, but 'fixes' the wrong thing (or doesn't fix things in the right way under the hood).  Unfortunately, I don't really have a better alternative whipped up and ready to go, so I'll avoid dragging this off-topic again.

I think that's the most on-topic feedback I've got for it.

You don't have to have a new system ready to go in order to critique this one: if you think the revision is bad and you can demonstrate that, it's enough.  But it's a demonstration that I need: concrete evidence of demonstrated absurdities, failures of unit match-ups, etc, not just the claim that it's bad.  You seem certain it won't work: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to show me, specifically, why.  In what specific scenarios will the PVs of units under the revision be inaccurate, or at least more inaccurate than they are now (I'm not chasing perfection after all, just attempting to get closer to balance than we have now)?  I have no more interest in replacing something broken with something broken in a different way than you do.  But something less broken is fine, even if it doesn't get everything exact (whatever that is).

Something I've asked earlier is the case with light units: just how much should they be?  Many say, "they're undervalued right now".  Okay, fine: we've listened and tried to fix that.  But HOW undervalued?  For those of you who play with such units, how much should a Savannah Master be?  A Locust -1V?  A Dasher Prime?  How we get to our PV goal is less important, for the moment, than figuring out exactly what that goal is.

I'm asking everyone interested to get down to brass tacks.  Help us make the game better.

[Scotty]

Well, like I said above, it's a solution that's going in the right direction.  Increasing the relative cost for defensive mods is a good thing!  But I think that the actual mechanics of the fix (that is to say, not altering the cost of MV at all, only changing defense mod calculations) get to the destination in such a way that isn't the most effective.  In that sense, I don't have a concrete, "this unit is still broken" (except maybe the Fireball XF still, because if you give me one of those things against anything 6" or slower I will not lose, period, ever), and more of a vague protest at the PV calculation mechanics not matching up entirely with what I think is actually valuable.

I think that the problem I'm having with settling on a "how much should X" be is the simple fact of the matter that nothing will be worth a given amount of PV X in situations A and B, or in situation C against unit type N.  If I'm fielding a Locust, it will certainly be worth more than its 16 PV against a single slow, lumbering sniper that it can get behind, worth incomprehensibly more than its 16 PV against an MG Foot Platoon, and worth exactly as many PV as its armor and structure combined against a single artillery piece.  In order to find the value you want something to be "correct" at, the scenario at which that value becomes correct must be defined.  Otherwise we're swinging at a pinata that might not even be in the same room for all we know.

[The Purist]

Pardon my 2 cents here but perhaps it is not a matter of fixing PV but rather a problem with game mechanics. If small fast units can 'game the system' then PVs are not the issue.

From my experience with TMM in BF and SBF it appears that all the dr mods are calculated against the target with the fast 'mover' not being effected at all where accuracy is concerned. From my own time in a Canadian Leopard tank I can tell you that even with a computer, laser range finder and gyrostab, the faster the tank went the harder it was to hit another target that was also moving.

It may be as simple as applying a to hit modifier against the shooter once the mech, cv or vtol moves above a certain threshold. Modifiers could be zero below a certain declared speed, +1 between speed a and b, +2 above speed b.

Likewise TMM of +X is only applied if the unit actually moves fast enough to earn the dr mod.  So that Locust 1M only gets its full TMM by moving at its max speed.

If my grasp of this situation is correct a Locust 1M moving full speed would still be tough to hit but if it fires at long range against mech with +1 TMM its final to hit would work out to be:

base to hit : 4 (assume regular)
+2 for moving x (say 6+)
+4 for long range
+1 TMM

Final to hit: 11+

It opposition, a Crusader 9AH, that moves slow enough to avoid a +1 or +2 'moving shooter' dr mod but fast enough to keep its +1 TMM, would shoot back with:

base to hit: 4 (regular)
+4 long range
+3 TMM

Final to hit: 11+

The odds have been evened but the Locust is still fast and hard to hit while the Crusader is still comparatively clumsy and needs to adjust its own tactics to hit the bug. Now its a matter of who can hit whom first with predictable results if it is the Crusader.

This is just a quick musing but instead of redesigning the entire PV system maybe the fix is in a simple adjustment to the game 'to hit' mechanics.

Just thinking out loud.

Cheers.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I like the direction you're going in.  Little gits are certainly the best bargains for the buck in AS, and that's evidence that some PV tuning is probably in order.  But I'd rather see too little correction than too much.... after all there's ways built in to the game to deal with minxy gits by ignoring their defensive mods.  You don't want to pay too much for a unit that's at the end of the day still easily dealt with via bombs and/or artillery.

With that in mind, I think I like where your proposed PVs are turning up. I haven't really delved deeply into it yet, but in looking at a few key units (Dashers, Savannah Masters, and similar) think there's a happy medium in making them more costly to field w/o being too costly for what they can contribute.

OTOH, I'm not sure I like what the STL special is doing to PVs.  It seems too much...  units like Void BA are being priced alongside medium mechs or cheap heavies... a Wulfen omnimech is priced like a heavy mech (albeit an IS-tech heavy...) and gods forbid if you take a 60 point Sha-Yu you're forgoing a top of the line assault mech you could have otherwise fielded.  Taking STL units seems to be a ginormous hit in staying and punching power... imo beyond the benefit of STL... especially considering you have to turn STL off now to get benefit of the ECM special.

[Mastergunz]

Scotty, love the color scheme you picked for your avatar. ;)

-Gunz

[Xotl]

Tai Dai: you hit the exact same conclusions I came to earlier today, including how Stealth can work, which makes me feel reassured.  There's a certain point where, even if you follow the mathematical progression based on how hard it is to hit something, you get an unhittable unit that costs a fortune because of that but still only deals 1 or even 0.5 points of damage.  Focusing too much on defence costs in pursuit of precisely modelling the 2D6 curve can cripple a whole swathe of units.

I just sent off a new revision to nckestrel with some new approaches.  We'll see what he thinks.  If he thinks it's good I'll try it again here (under this newer attempt, a Sha Yu -2B or -6B would be 36 points, while the -4B would be 48).

[Xotl]

Pardon my 2 cents here but perhaps it is not a matter of fixing PV but rather a problem with game mechanics. If small fast units can 'game the system' then PVs are not the issue.

It's a rather elegant solution and I kind of like it, but I fear that the desire to keep AS mated as much as possible to classic BT realities means that changing how movement affects your own attacks is likely not in the cards.

[Scotty]

Scotty, love the color scheme you picked for your avatar. ;)

-Gunz

1st Covenant Guards.  Hands down favorite scheme in the Dark Age.

[sadlerbw]

Ok, so I've been playing ExcelWarrior over here trying to sanity check the spreadsheet that was posted with regard to a personal theory of mine to see how they match up. So, my theory is that TMM is, at least on the defensive side of things, the exact opposite of skill rating. Skill makes all attacks easier and TMM makes all attacks harder, across the board. So, in my opinion, TMM ought to be as valuable as skill rating to the defensive calculation and maybe just as valuable as skill rating, period. So, I wrote up the PV calc for skill rating (p.145 in the AS companion) and ran it with both TMM 2 being average and TMM 0 being average. Then I took the average of the change in PV across the whole spreadsheet. I wanted to see how this compares to the proposed NEW PV values so I can comment on how much I think PV's should go up for high TMM.

What I need to make my formulas work correctly are the CURRENT offensive and defensive portions of the PV (or current PV and what portion of it is defense), and what the proposed NEW PV would be. I'm assuming the PV column in that sheet, Column O, is the 'new' PV, but I'm not sure if Q and R are the new offense/defense values, or the old ones. Can someone let me know if I am looking at the right columns? If I can find that info, I'll check the proposed PV's against the range I think they should be in.

Separately, I think that, in addition to adjusting PV, there needs to be a rules option to address the psychological issue of feeling like you can't hit fast units with normal pilots. I would like to see an option that lets you trade damage for lower to-hit mods. Could be as simple as damage/2, round down, and attacker gets no TMM for -1 or -2 to-hit, short/med range only. Think of it like bracket fire: you can trade off damage for a better chance at landing a hit in the first place. Basically, let players land a hit, just keep the damage low so it isn't likely a one-shot kill on a 2A/1S unit. Biggest problem is that it might make some of the crazy clan assaults too deadly, even at half damage. Anyway, it's a rough idea, but I think people want a more widely available counter for high TMM units, not just higher point values.

[Xotl]

Okay, after reading through the feedback and spending last night thinking about this, I've come to some conclusions:

As I see it, the main issue is with the Locusts, Dashers, and Savannah Masters of the world, rather than fatter units, even if they have the same high TMM.  That is to say, people aren't worried so much about Grand Dragons (bigger guys with some armour and structure to them) as they are annoying light units, which are hard to hit and even when you do finally hit them you probably overkilled it, wasting firepower that you paid dearly for in PV.  Larger units with such def mods are still hard to hit, but are a more significant chunk of your force PV-wise, and so you can't really swarm a guy in the same way while invalidating the firepower he paid for.

The problem is that, unless I crank the defense factor modifier through the roof, it's not going to matter much to units with 1 or 2 points of armour and 1 structure (as many have raised).  But if I do crank the modifier, the point hike is going to make even slightly tougher units with the same TMM impossibly expensive.  I'm already hitting the point of wondering how, with the revision numbers above, one can justify 20 PV for a unit only capable of dealing 0.5 damage and only at short range (like the Achileus WoB), or 31 points for something that, even if almost impossible to hit, only does 1 damage at medium range (the Cavalry Infiltrator).  And yet people are still saying the overall multipliers I'm using are too low mathematically, and then I look at something like the Locust IIC and I tend to agree in that case, because that thing is a terror and is still coming out undercosted even after the cost increase.  Something is being missed in the point system.

So here's what I'm proposing:

Jump Mod change: still in, same as earlier
Defense Factor Multiplier: If the unit's defense mod is 3 or higher, switch from a defense factor of 1.1 to 1.25.  That's the easy part.  It's pretty much what we did earlier in this thread, but drops any later progression to *1.5.  Simpler is better, and we'll make it up below.

The main change: I've added a new adder at the end of the PV step, called the Annoying Bastard adder (may be renamed if officially adopted).  The problem is not armour/structure on cheapo swarm units, as they don't have any.  It's not speed either, as speed is largely meaningless without firepower.  It's not firepower, as there lots of units with lots of guns that aren't broken.  And lastly, it's not just being hard to hit, because if you're hard to hit but can't hurt anyone then who cares?  The problem is firepower combined with being hard to hit.  The Locust IIC is a prime suspect: a pile of guns on something very difficult to tag.  Even worse is the Dasher Prime: just enough points spent on armour to function, and everything else into speed and respectable guns.

How the adder works: if a unit's defense modifier (not including stealth) is higher than 1, then multiply its medium range damage x (that defense modifier - 1) (again, not including stealth).  If a unit only has short-range damage, it doesn't pay this adder even if it has a high enough defense mod.

So, let's cost out a Dasher Prime.  It has a total defense of 4, so it uses the *1.25 defense factor multiplier.  This adds a whopping 6 points, instead of the 4 we would have added if we used the current system's *1.1.  That's better, but obviously not enough: the fact that it only has 1 armour and 1 structure makes it incredibly hard to deal with just using our defense multipliers.  However, as the Dasher has a defense mod higher than 1 and so is rather annoying, we take its medium range damage (3) and multiply it by its defense modifier - 1 (3).  This adds 9 points more, placing it at 28 PV.  On the MUL right now it's a mere 17 points.

So far I'm happy with this:
1) It raises the cost of heavy yet hard-to-hit units to better reflect their defence, but doesn't price them out of reach (compare a Cataphract -4L and an Atlas -D; I feel they're about equal, and the new pricing reflects this.  See also Grand Dragon -7K, Loki Prime, or other Size 3 units with a defense mod of +3 or higher).

2) It raises the cost of the disposable speedy units that people have had problems with (under this a Savannah Master is 15 points, and a Locust -1V is 18).

3) And the more firepower a speedy unit has, the more it pays.  The Locust IIC, a terror, goes from 28 points (MUL) and 32 points (first revision) to 42 points.

4) At the same time, it doesn't price units out of reach if they lack firepower, even if they are hard to hit.  The Void is no longer 26 points (first revision) but a more usable 20.  The Achileus (WoB) is not 20 but 13.  All such units still overall see increases, but I don't believe the increases are so great as to make these units unusable.

New spreadsheet linked below.  As always, feedback is not just welcomed but desperately wanted.  Look at some of these units and run them up against others to compare.  Try to find edge cases where this might break down.  Just please be detailed as you can.  Cheers.

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

[Xotl]

What I need to make my formulas work correctly are the CURRENT offensive and defensive portions of the PV (or current PV and what portion of it is defense), and what the proposed NEW PV would be. I'm assuming the PV column in that sheet, Column O, is the 'new' PV, but I'm not sure if Q and R are the new offense/defense values, or the old ones. Can someone let me know if I am looking at the right columns? If I can find that info, I'll check the proposed PV's against the range I think they should be in.

All values in the linked spreadsheet are the new values, recalculated using any proposed PV formula changes.

If you want the current values (i.e. as found on the MUL) for any work you plan on doing, I can output those for you.  Thank you for your time.  I heop the new batch of changes, coming a few seconds after you posted, doesn't discourage you.

[NeonKnight]

Sounds like you have really hit the nail there Xotl.

Looking forward to the way this works out, and from your description, really handles the issue

[Maingunnery]

All values in the linked spreadsheet are the new values, recalculated using any proposed PV formula changes.

If you want the current values (i.e. as found on the MUL) for any work you plan on doing, I can output those for you.  Thank you for your time.  I heop the new batch of changes, coming a few seconds after you posted, doesn't discourage you.

Please add a column with current PV values.