What is your favorite mech weight class?

[Precentor Scorpio]

I think BV works just fine, but than my games are designed to be played for 8 to 10 rounds and are objective based.   Conventions usually give you 3.5 hours to play and 30 minutes to set up and take down. 

[Sartris]

You can do all kinds of asymmetrical mission planning with BV. Some objectives demand wildly unequal bv disparity

[Phocion]

I don't think I agree with the premise of this argument. BV provides an approximation of what constitutes the strength of a force, but it says nothing about how to balance a scenario. It is completely reasonable to give an attacking force a 2:1 force advantage over an entrenched defender. That decision is part of how a scenario is written. The point system you choose is simply a tool designed to help you reach that goal.

The existence of a point system does not dictate that points must always be equal on both sides.

If you want to give the more experienced player a handicap, go ahead and do it. There are no balance police waiting to kick down your door for it.

I didnt say that a points system necessitates equal points.  You took that first paragraph a little out of context, and I said in my following line that there is scope to modify a scenario BV level to favor one side or another.  Im not saying that BV is there to make all games balanced, but it will balance games, without a reason not to.  Without some form of narrative structure - that scenario you mentioned - as the very reason to create unbalanced BVs, most players on average will seek to fight on equal terms, because it is fair.  Or, at least as fair as you can get in a rules system not designed to account for intangibles.

Narrative, scenario, and campaigns are generally the drivers behind imbalanced BVs because they give a reason, that everyone can subscribe to, for that imbalance.  Without that you are asking one player to fight an uphill battle without a reason.   I havent met many players over the years who will voluntarily fight a random pickup battle with 50% less points than you, for no reason.  Maybe your experience is different.

EDIT:  For grammar

[Phocion]

Interesting how many here seem to default to the concept that BV is to make something balanced or equal to each other whereas I see that as only one use of it.  To me you can just as easily use it to make it so that one side has a big advantage over the other perhaps either due to wanting to make it more of a challenge for a side or due to story reasons.

Of course if I had loads of experience with making encounters I could make exactly what I want without any help but frankly I personally do not have that skill set yet.  I can use BV as a base to make some initial choices or to modify my choices.  I could have a group that has a large number of jump capable mechs in a broken terrain map and using their BV I could make a group larger or smaller in BV but I could also adjust those numbers based on the type of mechs in this case I could put a scary looking higher BV group for them to fight but the higher BV group has mech unsuited to the terrain so the player group will feel intimidated by the other side with greater fire power but they have a real chance to win because their designs are better suited in the terrain.

I might not be exactly right but that feels like something I could do and without BV currently I do not think I would have a knowledge base to even begin.

Just to give an idea my experience is I am a fairly new player and if I did not have a local group then I would have trouble trying to come up with scenarios with any idea of how balanced or not the encounter would be on my own.

Sounds to me like you are on the right track.  BV will get you started, and if you want to use imbalanced BV, I would suggest making small adjustments at first, so you can test and adjust your scenario or narrative ideas from there.  All I can say is try it and see what happens.  Lack of experience is not a reason to stop you, and you will learn more from doing it yourself than by simply copying what someone else has done.  Fortunately, the forums here are very welcoming in my experience, and there are always people around to bounce ideas off and get feedback from.

Good luck!

[Daryk]

If you like unbalanced scenarios, experience will eventually let you ignore BV completely.

[JPArbiter]

I have never seen an 85 or 65 ton mech i did not like if not in performance then at least in appearance

[Daryk]

85 tonners have the advantage of being at the top end of the range for 1-ton jump jets.

[Hellraiser]

So new question for everybody what is your favorite weight class overall?  Light, medium, heavy, assault, or perhaps something a bit more esoteric?

I had to think about this a lot because I often field a mix of weights & use them for different purposes.

My favorites also change depending on unit type so while the question doesn't state it the thread title does say "Mech".

So with that in mind, I'd probably say Medium.

While I prefer Lights & Assaults for their specialty nature, those tend to be Vehicle or Fighter roles in a lot of cases.

Where as the bog standard Medium Mech, especially with Standard Tech or better, can be configured to do a many different roles.

That diversity makes me like the Medium class the most when it comes to mechs.

[Jester006]

I tend to gravitate towards medium mechs that are jump capable.  Wolverines, P.hawks, Griffins, etc.  I like the cavalry playstyle.  If you can out maneuver your opponent, more often than not will you be able to concentrate your firepower better.

[Thatguybil]

5/8 heavies
3/5 assault
6/9 mediums
4/6 heavy jumpers
5/8 medium jumpers
7/11 lights

[House Davie Merc]

Heavy followed by the classic fast jumping mediums .

There's just so many classic icons in this group that
define the early game for so many players .

Marauder ,Warhammer,Archer,T-Bolt ,Crusader, and Rifleman .

Followed by Phoenix Hawk and the 55 ton trio .