Author Topic: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match  (Read 14628 times)

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #60 on: 04 February 2013, 16:57:11 »
BV may have some issues but that is a 38% boost for the clan force for free.  I'd have to walk away if that is considered the only viable solution.  You might as well use stock FSM in that case.

Yeah, if their group is having problems beating 3025 Atlases with MadCats the answer is play better, not reward bad play.
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #61 on: 04 February 2013, 17:40:18 »
I think people are missing a thing about map size. Sure using a fast long-range unit like the Timby Prime might be tough on a 2x2 map (esp. with a G3 pilot, since that pays off most at long range). But there are perfectly good clan mechs for fighting at shorter ranges, you just have to look for the ones that don't pack in massive amounts of expensive weapons (esp. long-range ones). Crossbow A, f.ex, is decently fast, pretty tough, and throws 44 damage out to range 12 (IS assault-level firepower) for 1797 BV. The Viper Prime might not have the best firepower ever, but it's a beast against short-range IS pulse lasers and just 1450 BV.

Sure, there are good Clan units fighting at close range. There are also nice long-range IS units. Would you want to put a Lance of ARC-2Rs on a single 16 x 17 map, though?  ;)
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #62 on: 05 February 2013, 00:02:55 »
Sure, there are good Clan units fighting at close range. There are also nice long-range IS units. Would you want to put a Lance of ARC-2Rs on a single 16 x 17 map, though?  ;)

It's worth mentioning that while most clan units are equally good at long or short range, that the increased cost of long range clan weapons mean that if you end up using ERPPCs, LPLs and LRMs as close range weapons then you aren't getting the most bang for your buck in BV terms. There are a lot of weapons the clans have access to that don't have that problem, like the HML or HLL, but fortunately most clan players think they're "useless."
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #63 on: 05 February 2013, 00:21:15 »
It's worth mentioning that while most clan units are equally good at long or short range, that the increased cost of long range clan weapons mean that if you end up using ERPPCs, LPLs and LRMs as close range weapons then you aren't getting the most bang for your buck in BV terms. There are a lot of weapons the clans have access to that don't have that problem, like the HML or HLL, but fortunately most clan players think they're "useless."

Mmm.. I wouldn't say "useless," but you have a point that many Clan players shy away from them due to the range limitations.

The point is that your choice of available units shouldn't be limited by a map size. If the map was 5 x 5 hexes, Heavy Machine Guns would be fantastic, but it's an artificial environment.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Cik

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #64 on: 05 February 2013, 02:05:09 »
HLLs are far from useless. favorite weapon here. honestly though, unless your IS opponent is foolish or new it is ridiculously difficult to beat an IS opponent at close range, though abusing your extremely good battle armor helps alot.

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #65 on: 05 February 2013, 03:41:27 »
Mmm.. I wouldn't say "useless," but you have a point that many Clan players shy away from them due to the range limitations.

The point is that your choice of available units shouldn't be limited by a map size. If the map was 5 x 5 hexes, Heavy Machine Guns would be fantastic, but it's an artificial environment.
It's actually the other way around. Map size (and the terrain on the maps) is one of the primary determiners for unit choice! If you have to fight in a small area your choice of units should be based on that, not on where you want to fight.

After all, there might be "fluff" reasons the map is small - constraining terrain, off-map objectives that must be protected, dueling rules, "hold at all cost" orders...

It's true that BV becomes pretty much useless if the map gets really small (or large), but that's not just because of weapon ranges but rather how ranges and movement interacts. As long as you're aware of how the battlefield looks BV works OK on a single map sheet up to at least 3x3.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #66 on: 05 February 2013, 04:13:25 »
To each his own, I suppose. :) If it works for your game, rock on.

I've set the standard map size on Wars of Reaving to 50x50 and people seem pretty happy. The same was said of people on MekWars: Legends. But I suppose table top could be different.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6959
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #67 on: 05 February 2013, 07:10:48 »
To each his own, I suppose. :) If it works for your game, rock on.

I've set the standard map size on Wars of Reaving to 50x50 and people seem pretty happy. The same was said of people on MekWars: Legends. But I suppose table top could be different.
I think you misunderstand. I only meant that BV works (as well as it ever does) on small or large maps, and you can get an effective clan force even for a very small map.

But I didn't mean it would necessarily be fun to play such a fight. Two bunkers blazing away at each other can be balanced, but I doubt anyone finds it very interesting... ;)

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #68 on: 06 February 2013, 19:23:25 »
Lacking ammo is not cause to say the unit is over valued in BV.  It merely points to a design flaw in the unit.  Units such as the T-Wolf Prime were theoretically designed for clan style warfare where a limited amount of ammo is actually an asset in many cases.  Weapon BV does not take into account durability as part of its calculations.  Trying to make it do so is an exercise in futility.

Low ammo forces you to limit your shots and cuts down on the performance of the 'Mech.  For example, that Timber Wolf Prime cannot afford to use its LRMs at long range due to the low ammo so you cannot get the full value out of the weapons.  The most obvious example of this problem is that you can mount a weapon with no ammo at all which will still cost you full BV despite the fact that you get absolutely no benefit from it.

Now, that is not to say you would need to give penalties from a huge number like 20, but I think it would work to have BV start dropping off if you were below about 10 rounds.  It might also be beneficial to give different thresholds for short and long ranged weapons (maybe 6 and 12 respectively) because you tend to need less ammo for short ranged weapons.  Another option would be to add an ammo count modifier to weapons based on how much ammo they have instead of attaching BV directly to the ammo, but this would likely require some more intricate math because you would want them to approach the value of energy weapons asymptotically as ammo count approaches infinity which would require an exponential function (you would also need some kind of modifier for the risk of explosive ammunition).

Quote
OTOH there is some merit to the suggestion that taking the square root of the product of the OBV and DBV is more accurate that adding the values together.  At the very least I hope some play testing occurs in this area with TPTB.  I realize that a mathematical calculation of this type by hand would be time consuming but any pocket calculator in existence can do it with ease let alone any advanced calculator program or app you can use on pretty much any PC, tablet or smart phone.

Yes, this is by far the biggest shortcoming of the current BV system and it is really not that hard to fix.  Sure the math is slightly harder, but the point of BV is balance, not ease of calculation (the devs do it for us on all canon designs anyways) and a square root is not that hard to do.

The other big issue is with piloting skill modifiers which do not change for different units which draw different levels of benefit from them (the obvious case here is ASF vs. tracked vehicle).  The other half of this is that equipment modifiers like the Small Cockpit do not match up with the equivalent skill modifiers which can allow you to pay different amounts of BV for the same net effect.

How would you use a ranged Clan unit like a Supernova or Warhawk on such a small map? The Inner Sphere could run into your short bracket within 2 - 3 turns. Small maps (32 x 34) don't work for Clan games; they inherently favor the Inner Sphere or the side with brawlers. For what reason would a larger map (48 x 51) be "too big"?

Actually, the big assaults do less badly than most on the smaller maps because they do not really loose much because they were not planning on moving much in the first place, although they are still worse off than designs like the Kodiak.  The real losers are the skirmishers like the Viper B which want to hold the range open so they can work over the enemy from a safe distance but cannot due to the artificial confines of the map.

Just out of curiosity do you play clan vs I/S games?

Again, I know people are saying here that the clans should be winning but on Saturday I kicked the living snot out of a dodgyy-dodgy-weavy clan guy who was using cover, running like a madman and trying to keep range. Running from a MASC Berserker with a big hatchet is not so easy especially if he's on a suicide charge because and here's the crux of the matter - the IS guy can take a ton more damage than the clanner, but the clanner cannot afford to get hit.

You have yet to tell use how big a map you are using.  If you were playing on an appropriately sized battlefield you should have been able to easily outmaneuver that Berserker and make it little more than a waste of BV.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Psiclone

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #69 on: 07 February 2013, 09:34:25 »
You have yet to tell use how big a map you are using.  If you were playing on an appropriately sized battlefield you should have been able to easily outmaneuver that Berserker and make it little more than a waste of BV.

We have been typically playing on a 2x1 map as most of the starting scenarios had called for that so we just stuck with it. This Tuesday we're going to try a 5v8, 10000bv(no FSM) on a 2x2 map.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #70 on: 09 February 2013, 12:40:41 »
We have been typically playing on a 2x1 map as most of the starting scenarios had called for that so we just stuck with it. This Tuesday we're going to try a 5v8, 10000bv(no FSM) on a 2x2 map.

Well that would be your problem.  a 2x1 map is way too small to be using Clan technology, and even 2x2 is too small to be using anything faster than 4/6/4.  You can probably still pull out a win if you go with designs like the Kodiak, Kingfisher, and Nova Cat, but you will run out of BV long before you run out of slots with only 10,000 BV to play with unless you use Elementals to fill some of your 'Mech slots.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3990
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #71 on: 09 February 2013, 15:16:23 »
We have been typically playing on a 2x1 map as most of the starting scenarios had called for that so we just stuck with it. This Tuesday we're going to try a 5v8, 10000bv(no FSM) on a 2x2 map.

*Sigh*

Enjoy!
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

Psiclone

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #72 on: 09 February 2013, 16:16:18 »
Well that would be your problem.  a 2x1 map is way too small to be using Clan technology, and even 2x2 is too small to be using anything faster than 4/6/4.  You can probably still pull out a win if you go with designs like the Kodiak, Kingfisher, and Nova Cat, but you will run out of BV long before you run out of slots with only 10,000 BV to play with unless you use Elementals to fill some of your 'Mech slots.

So a 3x3 then? How much bv for a 3050 matchup?

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #73 on: 09 February 2013, 23:52:04 »
So a 3x3 then? How much bv for a 3050 matchup?

Yes, 3x3 is kind of mandatory.  I personally like 4x4 so the map edges are more hypothetical than practical, but I use MegaMek so I do not have to worry about table space.

As for BV, that really depends on what kind of units you want to be running.  There are a number of heavy and assault designs that break 4,000 BV after adding in the 3/4 pilots, but you can get some decent light and even medium designs for as little as 2,000 BV.  With a larger map to give you room to use the faster designs you could probably build a decent Star for around 15,000 BV, but 20,000 might be better.  You should also seriously consider better pilots because with a 3x3 map giving you the room to control range they essentially put you a full range bracket closer than you actually are and they more accurately portray the skills of canon Clan pilots who tend to average around veteran (2/3) skill which is a nice touch of flavor.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: 3050 Clan vs IS (5v8) - Balancing a Match
« Reply #74 on: 10 February 2013, 02:09:24 »
By the way, 3 x 3 might be big, but you CAN change deployment zones. Instead of the 3 hexes on the map edge, move it in another 5 hexes on either side or something. The goal is just to have more room to maneuver. You don't have to waste the time approaching each-other if you don't want to.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops