Register Register

Poll

Which path would be easier to create a current standard/tournament system?

Total Warfare
15 (34.9%)
Total Warfare- update the Martial Olympiad system
5 (11.6%)
Alpha Strike
12 (27.9%)
Alpha Strike- something like the MWDA competitive play format
3 (7%)
Other- please explain
8 (18.6%)

Total Members Voted: 43

Voting closed: 11 February 2022, 17:04:22

Author Topic: Establishing a standard/tournament game  (Read 3936 times)

Geg

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 550
    • Jade Corsair
Re: Establishing a standard/tournament game
« Reply #90 on: 21 January 2022, 13:26:36 »


Just performing a quick (and very dirty) analysis on what the different preference for BV values mean against the total scope of Mech units in the game.  The various BV points translate into the following:

6000BV
  • 4 Mechs
  • 4/5 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 9% below MUL Average

7000BV
  • 4 mechs
  • 4/5 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 5% above MUL Average

9000BV
  • 4 Mechs
  • 3/4 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 3% above the MUL average

10000BV
  • 4 Mechs
  • 3/4 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 13% above the MUL average

While looking at a standard deviation to the right:

10000BV
  • 4 mechs
  • 4/5 Pilots
  • ~9% higher than the +1 sigma value.

For me this places the sweet spot, for a 4 mech game, between fitting as many of the units on the MUL or enabling across the board skill upgrades to 3/4, lands at something like 9200BV.  In this thread, I have been advocating for a higher unit cap in order to better allow space for combined arms and that extra 9% both rounds out the value aesthetically to an even 10K, and gives a little more wiggle room to fit the higher unit count.

I am not expecting to change anyones mind.   Just felt it was interesting to visualize.
« Last Edit: 21 January 2022, 14:54:39 by Geg »


Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4002
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Establishing a standard/tournament game
« Reply #92 on: 22 January 2022, 12:06:04 »
I think it's better to be in the below-average range so it actually pushes players to use something more than just 'good' units. There doesn't need to be a cushion for designs like the Timber Wolf A, Jenner F, Firestarter "Mirage," etc. We all know they're good. A tournament style game with nothing but the best optimized variants will get very boring and grindy. This was the experience that drove me away from the game for a while (your results may vary).

The 6k or "9% below" would at least force someone to pick a mix of both the 'good' and the 'bad' to add variety in games. Anything 'good' in a tournament game should be one or two units in a lance. You don't want to make it easy for someone to take their Steiner Scout Lance meme into a game because they can take better pilots with it. Those things need to stay in home games.

Example, I'm going to use this for a 4v4 game:

Stormcrow C
Nova C
Kit Fox D

all 3/4, just below 6k. If I go 4/5 I can even sneak in another Kit Fox D.
« Last Edit: 22 January 2022, 12:10:12 by Fear Factory »
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Geg

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 550
    • Jade Corsair
Re: Establishing a standard/tournament game
« Reply #93 on: 22 January 2022, 13:28:24 »
Regardless of the BV point selected, there are always going to be combos of forces and tactics that will over perform.   One of the goal of a tournament organizers is to ensure that there are several different optimum strategies so that players don't feel the need to certain units in order to be competitive.   Having a lower number of units, of good unit, and skill upgrades runs the risk of limiting the number of viable strategies and in turns ups the chance the TOs will need to make a more arbitrary intervention as to what's allowed and not allowed.

I am not suggesting that this should be the only, or even dominant factor in decision making.   There are too many opinions and preferences as to what makes a good game (number of:  units, map sheets, average skills, preferred techbase) of Battletech for there to be an organic bottom up solutions.
« Last Edit: 22 January 2022, 13:39:18 by Geg »

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4002
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Establishing a standard/tournament game
« Reply #94 on: 22 January 2022, 16:23:39 »
I get it. I'm kind of seeing this:

Quick Standard Games

Succession Wars
6000BV
  • 4 Mechs or less
  • 4/5 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 9% below MUL Average

Clan Invasion (Clan v IS) - OR - Star League/Tech Renaissance (IS v IS)
7000BV
  • 4 mechs or less
  • 4/5 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 5% above MUL Average

^ This kind of simulates "bidding" the Clans do while facing the Inner Sphere. You can either match the opponent in numbers and smaller 'Mechs or bring less and more powerful 'Mechs.

Clan Invasion (Clan v Clan)
9000BV
  • 5 Mechs or less
  • 3/4 Pilots
  • Mech BV Average 3% above the MUL average

The hard part is bringing in conventional units, but 'Mechs are the heart of the game and should be the focus at the base.

Something like this:

1 unit =
  • 1x 'Mech
  • 1x Fighter
  • 2x Conventional Fighters
  • 2x Vehicles
  • 1x 'Point' of ProtoMechs
  • 2x 'Point or Platoon' of Infantry/Battle Armor
  • 1x 'Mech or Vehicle -AND- 1x 'Point or Platoon' of Battle Armor or Infantry (if main is transport capable)
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company