Author Topic: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted  (Read 63501 times)

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #510 on: 27 May 2017, 19:01:16 »
My impression is that normal game tables are too small and too cluttered for sustained long range combat. (you either don't have LOS, or you ran out of table to keep your distance with.)  As such I'd go for the simpler stealth is worth +1 modifier for defense calculations.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #511 on: 27 May 2017, 19:04:32 »
I think it would be more accurate to ask not how many battles occur at long range, but how many shots per battle are at long range. If, say, 20% of shots are at long range, 50% are at medium, and 30% at short (warning: numbers are wild guesses), we can use that to accurately point not only weapons fire but the effects of stealth. That said, a unit with significant long range firepower and stealth is going to do its damnedest to stay at long range, throwing off that calculation; additionally, how well it can accomplish that will depend on its speed vs that of its opponents.

I understand: I deliberately chose a best-case scenario for the Cataphract of 100% at long range to show the point.  We know it wants to be at long range to take advantage of its special setup, but even if we grant the assumption that it can, regardless of opponent's actions or what have you, it still only hits like anything else: on an 8+ before any mods.  Almost every unit has at least +1 defense, with 56% of units in the game having a defense mod of 2+.  And then there's cover and the crazy mod provided by woods, not to mention LOS issues.

So, even saying all the shots are at long range it doesn't look that great, just because you're not going to earn your points back by hitting something once every 3.5 - 6 turns (assuming you limit your attacks to easy-to-hit targets to maximize your investment).  To put it another way, even with a long-range damage of 3 or 4 and all the time in the world to use it, I'll probably want to wade in closer anyways.
« Last Edit: 27 May 2017, 19:39:05 by Xotl »
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 #512 on: 27 May 2017, 19:08:49 »
I'd second the notion that long range fire is a minor contribution to a battle at best.  More often than not it has a negligible impact on the outcome of a battle.

Of course, nonstandard playing areas or terrain densities may render sustained long range fire more useful.  SPAs, otoh, can make long range fire reliably have a meaningful impact... but I don't think we want to open PV balancing to include the most effective SPAs a unit might have.

SC_Dave

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 171
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #513 on: 28 May 2017, 01:25:08 »
Still actively soliciting feedback.  Hoping to find some time to close this out next week.

I've been dropping by this thread every so often but have not commented as yet. Although I can see that there are issues with the existing points system I haven't particularly noticed it in my games. I suspect this is largely because my most regular opponent and I have been playing scenarios that put limits on repeating mech types, and/or the number of artillery units. As such we have not run into problems such as how to stop a light mech horde.

I did however notice a distinct disparity on the table in one of the games where battle armor was deployed. I note this discussion has focussed mainly on mechs, but have any battle armor match ups been run through the number crunching simulators?

For example,
Gray Death Scout Armor (current PV 11, proposed PV 13) vs Phalanx A Battle Armor (current PV 12, proposed PV 14).

Both have 1 armor point, 2 structure, so equal there. The Phalanx has 4"f movement but has the STL special, The Gray Death suits have 8"j but no Stealth, so at short or medium range the Gray Death suits come out "1" harder to hit (they're even at long).

Damage is where the two are really set apart, 3/2/0 for the Phalanx, 0*/0/0 for the Gray Death suits. The Phalanx A can disappear a Gray Death unit in one hit at close range (numerous light mechs for that matter too), and 2 hits at medium. The Gray Death suits must close to short range and will take at least 3 hits to take out a Phalanx unit (assuming you're lucky with the 0*).

What do the Gray Death suits have that the Phalanx units don't - AM, LPRB, and RCN specials.

I guess if you make it base-to-base and can stay there in a 1 vs 1 the Gray Death suits could use the AM attack (which counts as a physical) against the Phalanx unit. But if more than one are on the table the Phalanx units could cover each other.

In a match up of Phalanx A vs Gray Death Scout suit the LPRB and RCN aren't going to count for anything. In a combined arms battle they may have more value and I guess that just makes this "a can of worms".   
 

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #514 on: 28 May 2017, 07:28:03 »
It's mostly because of the Force Multipliers the GDL suit has.  It pays an extra 3 points for LPR and RCN.  Basically the Grey Death suit is concentrating more on helping out the rest of its force, rather than being an attacking unit all on its own.  Park it in some trees and it has +5 def while applying a -1 or -2 to-hit mod to artillery strikes that it spots.  It's adding to BI and allowing more hidden units.  It's not intended to straight-up kill things on its own.
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: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #515 on: 28 May 2017, 15:32:33 »
Okay, I've updated the spreadsheet with Stealth only applying a +1 def mod for defense calculation purposes.  Take a look and see what you think.

Just waiting on seeing if there's any other aero PV changes coming through.  Otherwise there's nothing else in the pipe.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #516 on: 28 May 2017, 17:25:22 »
Someone asked for some general statistics. These are the battlemechs only.

Size   Count   Old   New   Increase
1   691   20.96816208   26.00289436   24%
2   852   30.84624413   34.41431925   12%
3   844   38.72985782   40.14336493   4%
4   746   49.36595174   49.04959786   -1%
All   3133   35.20108522   37.58729652   7%

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #517 on: 28 May 2017, 17:56:20 »
I've uploaded a fresh copy of the sheet with all the percentages cavingjan has kindly provided in an additional tab at the bottom.
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: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #518 on: 02 June 2017, 11:56:13 »
Sheet updated again.  No rules changes, but it adds all the units from the last XTROs (which were missing) and syncs up the MUL PVs with the MUL as it currently stands, so that their *shouldn't* be any contradictions (assuming I did the transfer right; if you notice any errors between what the sheet says the MUL cost and what the MUL actually has it as, please let me know).

Lastly, I've added a Compare column so that you can more easily see what has changed PVs, and by how much.  This should give players an easy way of seeing how things have changed thanks to the revision.

Thanks to nckestrel, Skyhigh, and Alexander Knight for pulling the MUL data I needed.


EDIT: Updated about half an hour later to fix a MUL PV bug.
« Last Edit: 02 June 2017, 12:45:52 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Ironclad82

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #519 on: 05 June 2018, 13:53:49 »
Please, please change the way the piloting skill cost is graduated to make it more parabolic so that a skill level 2 pilot is somewhere around double the point cost of a skill level 4 pilot and 0 pilot is almost prohibitively expensive.

It makes no sense tactically with the points economy currently to take units with less than skill 3& 2s. I’d like there to be an economically viable option for hordes and quantity over quality.

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #520 on: 05 June 2018, 14:39:11 »
Besides the 3 main changes. (Jumping Def mod dropped, 3+ Def mod costs 25% each, TMM and firepower add a cost.)   Are there any other changes still in the works? (Like STL is only worth +1, or C3 modifier changes.)  Or did they get scrapped for simplicity sake?

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #521 on: 05 June 2018, 14:58:10 »
This is the key stuff, including some older changes.  You'll see the full list in the formal errata document release tomorrow.  Nothing new has been added since the work that was done in this thread, except for order of operation bits (where precisely to round and whatnot).

Offensive Special Ability Factor Table (Ground Units) (p. 139)
1)   Under “ARTX-#”, Factor Value column, change Damage × 4** to Damage × 6**
2)   Change “CNARC” to “CNARC#” and its Factor Value from 0.5 to Ability Rating × 0.5
3)   Insert a new row for IATM#/#/#.  Its Factor Value is “Long range damage value × 1”
4)   Under “IF#”, Factor Value column, add the following: IF0* = 0.5
5)   Change “INARC” to “INARC#” and its Factor Value from 1 to Ability Rating × 1
6)   Change “SNARC” to “SNARC#” and its Factor Value from 1 to Ability Rating × 1
7)   Insert a new row for TSEMP-O#.  Its Factor Value is “Ability Rating x 1 (Max 5)”
8)   Under “TSEMP#”, Factor Value column, change Ability Rating x 1 (Max 5) to Ability Rating x 5
9)   Footnotes section, replace the ** footnote with the following:

**If the artillery delivers damage expressed by a slash, multiply the first (Inner) damage value by 6, then add 3 points for every point of second (Outer) damage value, plus 3 points for every 2 full inches of blast radius beyond 2”. (For example, a single Long Tom artillery weapon—Damage 3/1, Radius 6”—would receive a Factor Value of 27 [3 × 6 = 18] + [3 × 2” over 2” = 6] + [3 × 1 = 3] = 27).

Offensive Blanket Multipliers Table (Ground Units) (p. 139)
Remove “Any C3 Special (other than C3RS)”

Defensive Special Ability Factor Table (Ground Units) (p. 140)
Under “CR”, change its Factor Value to “0.25 (only if the unit has 3 or more Structure points)”

Defense Factor Modifiers Table (Ground Units) (p. 140)
1)   Under “Unit’s Best Move Rate”

Unit is Jump-Capable
Change to:
Unit is Jump-Capable*

2)   Under “Unit’s Type and Features”, change the Type Modifier for “Has Stealth Armor” from +2 to +1.
3)   Under “Unit’s Type and Features”, replace the “Has Mimetic Armor” entry with the following:

Has Mimetic Armor (LMAS Special)      +2**
Has Mimetic Armor (MAS Special)      +3**

4)   Replace the footnote text with the following:

*Apply only if the unit is infantry or has neither of the following: TSEMP (TSEMP-O does not count) and a Damage Value in any range bracket higher than 0.
**Apply only if this value is higher than the unit’s total Movement Modifier. If so, this value is used instead of the total Movement Modifier, not in addition to it.

Step 2a: Calculating Defensive Interaction Rating (DIR) (p. 141)
Under “Defense Factor”, replace the first paragraph with the following:

     Using the Defense Factor Modifiers Table on page 140, find the ground unit’s total target modifier. To do this, first find any applicable Type and Feature Modifiers. Then find the unit’s Movement Modifier (not including any jump-capable bonus). If the unit has more than one Move rate, use whichever provides the highest total bonus; however, never use a jumping Move rate over a non-jumping rate, even if the jumping Move rate is faster and/or provides a higher modifier.
     If the total is either 1 or 2, multiply the result by 0.1. If the total is 3 or higher, multiply the sum by 0.25. Whatever the result, add 1 to find the unit’s Defense Factor.
     If the total is less than 0, drop the negative and multiply the result by 0.1. Subtract the result from 1 to find the unit’s Defense Factor. For example, a unit with a total target modifier of –1 would have a Defense Factor of 0.9.

Step 3: Determine Unit’s Final Point Value (p. 141)
Replace the first paragraph with the following:

     Once the Offensive and Defensive Values for a ground unit are known, add them together to find the unit’s Point Value Subtotal.
     Certain capabilities (or lack thereof) can drastically alter a unit’s battlefield potential. The following PV Subtotal Modifiers alter a unit’s cost to reflect this. Each modifier is applied to the PV Subtotal at the same time, only after all applicable modifiers have been calculated (i.e. they do not rely on one another, and so can be performed in any order). Round each modifier to the nearest 0.5.
     Agile: Take the unit’s Target Movement Modifier (not including any jumping modifier). If this is 2 or higher, then multiply the unit’s TMM – 1 by the unit’s Medium range damage value. If the unit has no Medium range damage value, but has a Target Movement Modifier of 3 or higher, then multiply the unit’s TMM – 2 by the unit’s Short range damage value. Apply the result to the unit’s PV Subtotal. Otherwise, no additional cost is applied.
     For example, a Dasher Prime has a TMM of 4, and a Medium-range damage value of 3. As such, it applies an extra [(4 TMM – 1) x 3 Medium range damage] = 9 points to its PV Subtotal. A Dasher H has no Medium range damage value. However, its TMM is 4, and so a charge of [(4 TMM – 2) x 5 Short range damage] = 10 points is applied to its PV Subtotal.
     C3: If the unit has NOVA or any form of C3 other than C3RS, add (PV Subtotal x 0.05).
     Brawler: If the unit is armed, has at least 2 inches of Move, and is not equipped with any of the following special abilities: ART-# (any type), BT, C3 (any type), ECM (any type other than LECM) or NOVA, then it may modify its PV Subtotal as follows.

Step 2: Determine Unit’s Defensive Value (p. 142)
Delete the “Threshold Value” paragraph and replace the Armor Factor paragraph with the following:

The Armor Factor of an aerospace unit equals its Alpha Strike Armor value. This is multiplied by (1.3 + (the unit’s Threshold * 0.1)); if the result is higher than 1.9, reduce it to 1.9. If the unit has the BAR special, divide the final result by 2.

Step 2: Determine Unit’s Defensive Value (p. 144)
Under “Movement Factor”, second sentence

If the unit possesses a Thrust of 10 or more, add 1 additional point to this result.
Change to:
If the unit possesses a Thrust of 7-9, add 0.5 points to this result. If the unit possesses a Thrust of 10 or more, instead add 2 points.
« Last Edit: 05 June 2018, 15:02:50 by Xotl »
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 #522 on: 05 June 2018, 19:16:53 »
..You'll see the full list in the formal errata document release tomorrow...

Ooh!

Hate to be the guy who's never satisfied with what he's handed... but I am curious if the MUL will also be updated tomorrow to reflect the formal status of the errata for PV calcs?  I got a game on Friday to get ready for and kinda hoping you'll do the hard work of converting PVs for me :D

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #523 on: 05 June 2018, 22:28:27 »
They're all already done in the spreadsheet, so you can access them at any time.  As for the MUL proper, no idea: that's not my department, I'm afraid.  It could be any time, including "not soon".
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #524 on: 05 June 2018, 23:03:42 »
Glad those All Powerful Fleas and Targes are now properly charged, being that they were so incredibly dangerous .... most of them, meh. As a WOB Player, having the cost of my assault units go down is a help, with the other charges we play.... I probably won't be giving up so much tonnage to my opponents.

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #525 on: 06 June 2018, 07:33:43 »
"Agile:  Take  the  unit’s  Target  Movement  Modifier (not  including  any  jumping  modifier)"

This line might need to be reworded for clarification.  Is it referring to the +1 defensive bonus from jumping,  Or does it refer to the case where a units TMM would change significantly if the unit jumped instead of walked.  Say something with a 6"/14j"  movement. (iJJ and partial wing type design.) TMM:1/3(+1)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #526 on: 06 June 2018, 13:10:20 »
Per the To-Hit Modifiers Table in AS, the jumping mod is a Target Movement Modifier.  So it literally means what it says: calculate the unit's TMM, but don't include the listed +1 Jumped TMM mod.  I'll update the wording from "any jumping modifier" to "the Jumped modifier" to make it clearer it's referring to the table entry, though.

Also, since high-def units now properly pay for their defense, we're looking at increasing the cost of the highest Skill Rating improvements.  The math is the same on that end except that it's offense, and we don't want high-def units being short-changed by it being too cheap to bulk up on offense.  Any thoughts on the matter, folks?
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 15:30:29 by Xotl »
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 #527 on: 06 June 2018, 13:16:41 »
...
Also, we're looking at increasing the cost of the highest Skill Rating improvements.  Any thoughts on the matter, folks?

Absolutely.  The farther you are from 4 the bigger the cost jump should be.  I.E. going from 1 to 0 should cost more than 2 to 1, which should cost more than going from 3 to 2, and etc.

In absence of such, high skills dominate the game thanks to the all or nothing nature of attacks.  Pretty much need to have house rules, 3rd party provided lists, or gentlemen's agreements about limiting skill upgrades to keep from seeing lists dominated by ridiculous pilot ratings.


And if you're soliciting more feedback in general on PVs: I'd still like to see aerospace reevaluated. But that's as big a nugget as the excellent work you've only just now got finished into official status :)

Edit:  Since I got slipped a bit by the edit there... I'll state that I agree with your logic Xotl.  High skills are even more relatively valuable than they were before now that high defense is more expensive to field.
« Last Edit: 06 June 2018, 13:19:27 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #528 on: 06 June 2018, 15:15:58 »
Absolutely.  The farther you are from 4 the bigger the cost jump should be.  I.E. going from 1 to 0 should cost more than 2 to 1, which should cost more than going from 3 to 2, and etc.

In absence of such, high skills dominate the game thanks to the all or nothing nature of attacks.  Pretty much need to have house rules, 3rd party provided lists, or gentlemen's agreements about limiting skill upgrades to keep from seeing lists dominated by ridiculous pilot ratings.


And if you're soliciting more feedback in general on PVs: I'd still like to see aerospace reevaluated. But that's as big a nugget as the excellent work you've only just now got finished into official status :)

Edit:  Since I got slipped a bit by the edit there... I'll state that I agree with your logic Xotl.  High skills are even more relatively valuable than they were before now that high defense is more expensive to field.

Skill costs should definitely be charged more .... especially with the changes to defense

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #529 on: 06 June 2018, 16:03:21 »
Per the To-Hit Modifiers Table in AS, the jumping mod is a Target Movement Modifier.  So it literally means what it says: calculate the unit's TMM, but don't include the listed +1 Jumped TMM mod.  I'll update the wording from "any jumping modifier" to "the Jumped modifier" to make it clearer it's referring to the table entry, though.

Perhaps I'm beating a horse but...

A:  "Target Movement Modifier" is not a defined term in the conversion rules or PV rules.  The closest is "units best move rate" from the defense factor modifier table pg.140.
B:  with the new rules, Jumping distance is excluded from the best move rate, unless its infantry or unarmed.
C:  thus the confusion when the agility bonus referees to TMM, and the closest thing mentioned in the PV rules says to ignore jumping movement distance.

The real question is, what is the intent?
Is the agility bonus only supposed to work off of non jumping movement?  Or is it intended to apply a bonus when jumping gives the unit its best TMM.

If extended jumping movement is supposed to be included, then simply adding the word "Best" in front of TMM should solve my issue.  If not then a call back to the movement value used in the DIR might be the way to go.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13698
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #530 on: 06 June 2018, 18:32:58 »
The right-hand column on that table says "Movement Modifier".  Ignore the bonus to Movement Modifiers provided by being jump-capable when calculating the PV.  The only time this is ever mentioned is during the DIR, so that's the only time you should care or try to apply it.

This is not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it.
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: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #531 on: 06 June 2018, 23:11:24 »
Spreadsheet updated with MUL corrections, including adding MEL to all units that had SHLD.

Download link still in the first post.
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 #532 on: 07 June 2018, 02:52:02 »
Which is not how the spreadsheet is implementing it Scotty.

Pull up the packhunter II.  Movement is 14/20j.

Walking gives a +3 TMM.  Jumping gives a +4(+1 more for jumping)
Medium range damage is 2.

If you use only the walking TMM then the Agility bonus should be worth 4 PV.
If you use the Best TMM, then the agility bonus should be worth 6pv.

The Spread sheet says the agility bonus is worth 4 PV.

Or

Pwwka S-PW-1LAM
Walking is 12"  Jumping is 12"j Airmech mode is 36"g
Medium damage is 3

If Walking is used, Agility bonus is 3.  If walking is used agility bonus is still 3.  If WiGE movement is used, agility bonus should be 12.
The Spreadsheet reports the agility bonus is 3.  So the conditions that give the best TMM are not applied again.


The wording used in the Agility Bonus section of the rules works for the general case where Jumping MP is at most equal to the walking MP,  But is not sufficiently clear when Jumping movement is greater then ground movement.  My personal recommendation is to go with wording along the lines of "Take the units Best Target Movement Modifier"   Which is not how the spreadsheet is calculating things now,  but helps close a potential exploit in the rules.  (Its better to over cost a subset of units, then to under cost them.)


This would also be an errata question, which can hopefully be nipped now rather then later.
LAMs.  Should they use the movement mode provided by their LAM special ability for PV calculations?  As of right now, they are not according to the spreadsheet.  Somewhat relevant since the new DIR calculations do mention using the best movement mode (Unless it's jumping)

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #533 on: 07 June 2018, 03:24:09 »
Skill cost changes.
Scrap the system that is in place now,  and replace it with a table of numbers to multiply by, round up.

On one hand, you lose a bit of the "Do it in your head" fast PV changes.
On the other hand, you can easily more accurately reflect the value of higher and lower skilled pilots, And you close any attempts to game the system by picking units that are right at the threshold of a PV cost per skill increase.  (Like you pick a unit with 24 PV instead of 25 PV to come out 4 points cheaper at zero skill.)

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13698
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #534 on: 07 June 2018, 07:01:13 »
I'm almost certain the issue with LAMs is a spreadsheet one because most (all other) units don't have three modes of movement and the formula was propagated on just the ground/jump columns.  Xotl, can you confirm?
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 #535 on: 10 June 2018, 21:08:35 »
I played in a 750PV battle this weekend with forces composed under the new format.  Ended up still being enough for two companies, and I feel the high TMM guys were able to still play a big part of the battle... without the game being about those little guys.

One game is a small sample size, but I feel y'all did a pretty dang good job on the PV-reeval.  (batrep is in the AARs if anyone is interested in more details about the game)

DarkJaguar

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 220
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #536 on: 10 June 2018, 22:02:58 »
I played in a 750PV battle this weekend with forces composed under the new format.  Ended up still being enough for two companies, and I feel the high TMM guys were able to still play a big part of the battle... without the game being about those little guys.

One game is a small sample size, but I feel y'all did a pretty dang good job on the PV-reeval.  (batrep is in the AARs if anyone is interested in more details about the game)

Good to hear!  Just need it to be applied to the MUL now, so that I don't have to beg my group to cross reference and adjust their force lists against a spread sheet.

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12021
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #537 on: 28 June 2018, 17:18:58 »
has anyone worked up the old sample forces from the Alpha Strike main book? under the old PV system they averaged 400-500pv, and i think a lot of people have been using them as a gauge for deciding o nthe PV to use for their own custom made forces. i'm curious as to how those sample forces would work out in this revised PV system, since that could help give us an idea of how much we should tweak our custom force's PV upwards.

Azakael

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 733
  • Brotherhood of Outreach - Until the Sword Breaks
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #538 on: 28 June 2018, 18:33:45 »
My first step is to go through my existing lists and just copy new PV over the old one. Which is a little slower than I would like, as I have a fair number of companies organized.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted
« Reply #539 on: 28 June 2018, 21:25:39 »
The most recent errata specifically updates those forces to the new totals.

Which reminds me: there's been no error reports on that new errata, so I need to upload it to the main site and make it official.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

 

Register