BV difference in Army construction

Post here your ideas for the campaign settings

Moderator: Moderators

Kveldulf
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:12 am

BV difference in Army construction

Post by Kveldulf » Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:47 am

I have always, and will always, feel that this limitation is the worst way to mitigate cheezing in lance construction.
As it currently stands with the bv spread allowed from biggest to smallest the types of things that are not allowed are:
Griffins and Wasps in the same lance, lances made up of LMHA (which are some of the most fun lance compositions out there), and pretty much any inclusion of lighter mechs of the not 30-35 ton range in a lance with even larger heavies. This does not seem to me to promote fun, fluff, or ease of play.
In a situation where my hanger might be limited in size, and I have zero control over what chassis I get from a pull, it is currently entirely possible, and very probable, to end up with a mech that can only used in a single lance combination, or even not at all. This is not fun, and not that player's fault.

There are other ways to combat cheezing lance composition. Construction rules like the 50% rule, where 50% of the lance must be of the medium and/or heavy weight classes, or my personal favorite the stair step rule, where you must have each weight class leading to the largest or smallest in the lance (ie LLMH is good, LMHA is good, LLLA is not.)

As to how important this is to me personally? I want to play here, I want to play megamek and have fun playing battletech with other people on a regular basis. Yet every time I try to make a go of this server (which is the only server around with a reliable playerbase online at a given time) this is the rule that comes up and basically says to me "yeah, you want to play? Well F-off if you actually want to do so easily." Currently I tried to enroll, and out of my initial mechs I have a Griffin, which turns out to be completely useless to me as its bv is too high to be put into an army with the other three highest bvs that I have. Now this is not about this one instance of it hamstringing my lance building. This is about this rule making it a pain in the butt to actually log in and throw down a game and have fun. This is the rule the continues to drive me away from this server and has essentially left me out in the cold by way of places to grab a quick game when I get a chance to.

For those of you that do not know me or do not recognize the screen name, I have been around the megamek block for more than a decade and have played at least a game or two on almost every mekwars server that has existed in that time, so I'm not a whining noob, I'm an old duck who just wants to swim in the pond once in a while without getting hassled for it.
I honestly think that there are better, smoother and more player friendly ways to handle curbing composition abuse that do not also leave players in the position of having mechs that can only be used in one build, or no builds at all.

Lando
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Lando » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:03 am

Kveldulf wrote: Currently I tried to enroll, and out of my initial mechs I have a Griffin, which turns out to be completely useless to me as its bv is too high to be put into an army with the other three highest bvs that I have.
Have you realized, that you can field your GRF with 1 other unit?

You don't need 4 units for an army anymore. You can make a Raid or a Patrol with just 2 units.
Have you realized, that it is possible to field every unit in 2 lances now?

Kveldulf
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:12 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Kveldulf » Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:24 pm

So your 'solution' is to play with only two or three mechs rather than building a full lance, in a game that is designed for lance on lance play. Cool, I'll not get right on that because that is not the kind of game that I am even remotely interested in.
As for the two lance idea, I have neither the time, nor the mechs because I haven't even gotten out of SOL (where you get 7 mechs) to do that. If I wanted a big game, I would look for a company level game, sometime in the future where I had a company in my hanger and enough time to devote to that size of a match.

Your 'solutions' are not solutions. If you do not recognize this as a unneeded hurdle to play, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble but anything that causes your pulls from the factory to potentially give you legally unusable units in a full lance is something that should not be used. It caused me to say goodbye to this server years ago when it was first put in, and it continues to prevent me from coming back. I will never be convinced that a build like Wasp Locust Wolverine Griffin is cheezy, or something that should not be able to be run together, but that is exactly what this rule currently causes.

Lando
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Lando » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:08 pm

Well, maybe it is wrong, that i answer your here, because I'm by no means part of the stuff, admin or so. I'm only a normal player and guest here like you.

Spork is trying something new. He made the economic more hard than in the past, so it feels more like the 3025 lore years. You start with 7 scrappy units and one of your goals should be to build up a powerful hangar. Over time and experience you get more bays for more units and access to heavier units.

I think Spork tries to give people an ioncentive to play. Only with playing games you get XPs and only with XP you get more Bays.

I don't say, that in my opinion everything is good, but i think we should give it a chance, and then give a feedback to improve the situation.

If you are only willing to play, if everything fits your needs and your playing style, then i think you won't find any server to play. You will have to start your own server.

Only my 2 cents.

Saint
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:47 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Saint » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:16 pm

I think you misunderstand the 2 lance idea. You can use the same unit in more than one army now. That had never been the case in the past.
it ain't no taint to be the Saint

Kveldulf
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:12 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Kveldulf » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:11 pm

I have zero issue with there being a tough economy.

The issue is there is zero ability to deploy some of my units as part of a full lance, and that is bad design flat out.
I did not choose to have a hanger of either 400 bv machines or 1100+ bv machines, but right now thats what I have, and this means that there are units that just cannot be used together because the invisible (and awfully hard to find) rules built into the server say that they cannot be.
I would love to give this server a shot, and enjoy the difficulty the tougher economy. But not if there is also the artificial limitation of not having some mechs not deployable with some other mechs because "those ones might be too good, and those ones too bad." If you want a harder economy, lift the limitations of army building and let me actually put what I have in a lance and use it. Otherwise I'll skip the frustration and find something else to do.

Chaser
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:38 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Chaser » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:23 pm

Threats always work.

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Dwight Derringer » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:39 am

Kveldulf wrote:"those ones might be too good, and those ones too bad."
That isn't the reason for the BV spread mechanic for army construction.

This server has been around for a long time and in the vast, overwhelming majority of times the rules are in place for a very good reason.

What you're asking for might make you happy for a game or two, but believe me when I say that once you start encountering armies made by hyper-intelligent players (of whom there are a few) exploiting that lifted restriction, the reasoning behind the rule will strike you like a bolt of lightning.

Your attitude is all wrong. Nobody is going to respect a newer member of the community that whines about a part of the server that everyone else understands and accepts as a necessity. If you tried asking for an explanation as to why the rule is in place before standing up on your soapbox and calling it stupid I imagine you'd have a much better response.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Illician Lancers » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:56 pm

Dwight Derringer wrote:
Kveldulf wrote:"those ones might be too good, and those ones too bad."
That isn't the reason for the BV spread mechanic for army construction.

This server has been around for a long time and in the vast, overwhelming majority of times the rules are in place for a very good reason.

What you're asking for might make you happy for a game or two, but believe me when I say that once you start encountering armies made by hyper-intelligent players (of whom there are a few) exploiting that lifted restriction, the reasoning behind the rule will strike you like a bolt of lightning.

Your attitude is all wrong. Nobody is going to respect a newer member of the community that whines about a part of the server that everyone else understands and accepts as a necessity. If you tried asking for an explanation as to why the rule is in place before standing up on your soapbox and calling it stupid I imagine you'd have a much better response.
I can totally agree with Dwight here for so many reasons.

For starters that bv spread is there for a really good reason one of then is to made sure you don't bring an atlas with stg and wsp because at those bv atlas will be the king of the battlefield supported by recon units instead of assault units and then you have a big problem in army building and players actitud.

and second and with all modesty :twisted: I consider myself one of those hyper-intelligent Demi-God players 8) :roll: and i can assure you that if that rule is taken off fighting vs my armies will be less that enjoyable will be more like a hell experience because i know how to exploy all the rules to my favor the BT rules and the server rules and like me there are a few other hyper-intelligent Demi-God players that will made the experience of playing here very hard for the rest and it doesn't have to do with been a good community member even if those hyper-intelligent Demi-God players doesn't made those armies someone will do then and when that happens guest what? hyper-intelligent Demi-God players will started to made then too and those guys are much better in smashing everybody else with what they use now so imagine with those types of armies. :shock:
Last edited by Illician Lancers on Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Spork » Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:32 pm

All that being said, if the current restrictions make it impossible to deploy an army reasonably in SOL, we have 2 options:

1) scrap the SOL hangar and let it be regenerated - I will happily do this for any SOLie in actual need.
2) Examine the BV spread. I have zero opposition to this. I would like it phrased as a suggestion instead of a threat, but it is what it is.

Currently, for tutorials, the BV spread is 700. That's actually relatively lenient, but I'm not necessarily against moving that.

IL, please do *not* promise to make games against you "hell." That is a certain way to invite action by the staff. Regardless of settings, I expect people to try to make games against them enjoyable within the framework. If someone is actively working against that, they are not welcome on my server.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Illician Lancers » Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:41 pm

Spork wrote:IL, please do *not* promise to make games against you "hell." That is a certain way to invite action by the staff. Regardless of settings, I expect people to try to make games against them enjoyable within the framework. If someone is actively working against that, they are not welcome on my server.
I was trying to made a point about the bv spread but sure if the sentence is to strong I will play like we are all in heaven. The only thing i work against is the other player, making sure he has a hard time killing me and me an easy time killing him. Same thing everybody does or try to do. Regardless of whatever i said or do the staff need to do what the staff feel right doesn't matter if i think they are right or wrong.

Saying that I think the solution for the SOL games is the right one unless for the actual settings we have now.

Serena
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Serena » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:05 pm

I have to agree with Illician here. taking out bv spread limitations would lead to heavily min-maxed armies. The only way to actually deal with that is to do it yourself, so you'd have all of the vets playing that way against each other, and any new players, that want to play with the "spirit" of the game, will get creamed. Right now, the bv spread is pretty leniant, even in patrols, and I don't think that should be changed. Maybe tutorials? dont know, only played one game during the test and one this cycle, but i had options for 3 different bvs each time.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:32 pm

It might make more sense for this to be a tonnage spread, IMO. It would allow all units in a starting hangar to interact, and it would fall directly in line with canon. Total Warfare has a random "Lance weight" table (below) which could be mimicked in this manner.

All of the gripes about so-called "min/maxing" encompass a scenario where an Assault is paired with a Light. I don't think I've ever seen anyone who could say that a WVR-6M is "cheesy" when paired with a HER-2S, however. Tonnage spread would allow some VERY common pairings to exist, where right now they cannot.

Image

Example 1: The OSR-2C, QKD-4G, etc. are examples of fast Heavies which could keep up with a Light army. A 25- or 30-ton spread would allow these to be fielded. This spread would exclude the faster Lights, such as the LCT-1V, and prevent a "cheesy" heavy & light combination.

Example 2: A 30 ton spread would mean an LCT-1V (20 tons) would be illegal to bring with a Wolverine (55 tons), regardless of BV. But it would always be able to be fielded with a PXH-1 (45 tons), regardless of the model. This is in line with a faster scout Lance meant for recon duty.
Last edited by TigerShark on Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Spork » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:37 pm

I like this concept. I have the bones of a Tonnage-Spread validator already in the code (for a couple years now). I don't think it would take that much to actually make it work.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Illician Lancers » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:45 pm

I love the concept. That is how canon was design years ago with the weight lance concept and that made for really a lot of interesting armies combos more in pair with the canon original concept. True the bv is maybe a little more balance but the balance can be better see in level 2 tech. A lot of canon lances in 3025 are things like a RFL, 1 PX1 and STG and WSP or 2 STG, etc that maybe is 40tn weight spread but give you an idea of how armies in 3025 were really design and that is a recon lance concept, here with the access to many more models I agree with TS the weight spread need to be a little more small, but as idea is a great one.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:15 pm

Based on this campaign, I could see it going this way:

Patrol: 25-30 ton spread
Conquer: 35-40 tons spread
Invasion: 60 tons (attacker), unlimited (defender), Requires defender ELO to be above 1600

Not my campaign, obviously, so take these with a grain of salt.

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Jackal » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:59 pm

Tonnage spread is definitely and interesting idea.

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Zerberus » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:44 pm

Mh. I would rather propose tonnage restrictions/requirements and/or speed requirements for some ops instead of a tonnage spread. Would that lead to more ops? Yes, but even if it was five or six instead of three ops that should not demand too much of the players.

Another idea to allow new players to be able to make viable armies could be to give out the starting units by BV ranges instead of weight classes. Classify units by every 350 BV, and then give out e.g. one <= 350, two <= 700, three <= 1050 and one <= 1400 ... you could even use this system to determine the bays required for a unit instead of going by weight class ...

Kveldulf
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:12 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Kveldulf » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:59 pm

I apologize if my statement came off as a threat, it wasn't. It was merely stating the facts of the situation as I see it, that being with the bv spread the way it is and the small sized hanger of units I have no say in chassis (and thus base bv of those mechs) it is an extra hurdle in matchmaking that drives me away from a server rather than toward it.
Do not be fooled into thinking that this is the 'whinnings of a noob' . This isn't. I haven't checked, but I would hazard that I have been registered on these forums as long or longer than most of you, and I can very well remember when a slow night was 20-25 people logged onto the server.
The facts that I was laying out was that a fairly basic lance construction that is found throughout the fluff is completely disallowed here. There is no reason whatsoever that ANY medium mech should be unable to be part of a lance with ANY light mech, and I would say that this same holds true for any adjacent weight classes. If the bv spread does not allow this then there is something wrong with that spread. Period. And you will never convince me otherwise.

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Tuco » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:34 am

If you change from bv spread to ton spread, don't forget to throw out the victory conditions we currently have.
When the injustice is great enough, Justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it.
None may stand against it.
It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment and lend its servant the power to pass sentence.
Know this: there is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them.
It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods.
Know that for ALL who betray Justice, I am their fate... and fate carries an Executioner's Axe.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by TigerShark » Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:14 pm

Tuco wrote:If you change from bv spread to ton spread, don't forget to throw out the victory conditions we currently have.
Why would army composition affect victory conditions?

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Tuco » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:40 pm

We use out-bv and bv destroyed. I can guarantee you that if bv spread is removed, some players will instantly build armies making use of these conditions. I recommend to change the victory conditions to units destroyed if dropping bv spread.

I'm not against a ton spread but it has to be fully thought through before being implemented.

Ton spread was one of the two options discussed before McWizard coded bv spread. At that time, bv spread seemed to be the better abuse killer.
When the injustice is great enough, Justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it.
None may stand against it.
It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment and lend its servant the power to pass sentence.
Know this: there is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them.
It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods.
Know that for ALL who betray Justice, I am their fate... and fate carries an Executioner's Axe.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by TigerShark » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:34 pm

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the suggestion. The method of finding games and balancing would still be Battle Value. The "tonnage spread" would just replace the requirement that units are within X BV of each-other. You wouldn't need to change Victory Conditions or the way armies are balanced once you go Active.

EXAMPLE: Someone posts in main chat "looking for a game at 3,000 BV." I make an army around 3,000 BV, but my lightest and heaviest units need to be within 30 tons of each-other.

ILLEGAL
Wasp WSP-1A (20 tons, 384 BV)
Wasp WSP-1A (20 tons, 384 BV)
Locust LCT-1V (20 tons, 432 BV)
Awesome AWS-8Q (80 tons, 1846 BV with a 4/4 pilot)
Total BV: 3046
The difference between the WSP-1A and the AWS-8Q is 60 tons, making the army illegal.

LEGAL
Locust LCT-1V (20 tons, 432 BV)
Locust LCT-1V (20 tons, 432 BV)
Phoenix Hawk PXH-1 (45 tons 1,041 BV)
Phoenix Hawk PXH-1 (45 tons 1,041 BV)
Total BV: 2,946
The difference between the lightest and heaviest unit is 25 tons. This army is legal, since all units are within 30 tons.

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Dwight Derringer » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:06 am

The tonnage spread idea is fantastic, even if only to shake up the metagame a little.

edit: But do you know what? Well-leveled SL units would be ridiculous under this paradigm. I see that as a good thing, but many players may not.

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: BV difference in Army construction

Post by Tuco » Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:29 am

TigerShark wrote:I think maybe you're misunderstanding the suggestion. The method of finding games and balancing would still be Battle Value. The "tonnage spread" would just replace the requirement that units are within X BV of each-other. You wouldn't need to change Victory Conditions or the way armies are balanced once you go Active.
I think you're underestimating some of the players. And I perfectly understood the suggestion, which is worth a try.
While some units are very fragile for their bv, some are not. Those who game the system instead of their opponent will find the perfect combinations of units to delay the triggering of bv-based victory conditions. Ton spread will (bv-wise) allow more extreme combinations than now. At first, super-unit armies will return. So it's better to get rid of bv-based victory conditions and straight go for something like Units Destroyed.
When the injustice is great enough, Justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it.
None may stand against it.
It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment and lend its servant the power to pass sentence.
Know this: there is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them.
It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods.
Know that for ALL who betray Justice, I am their fate... and fate carries an Executioner's Axe.

Post Reply