Power Gaming Designs in the Mechwarrior Universe

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Akirapryde2006
03/22/16 11:35 AM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Power Gaming Designs in the Mechwarrior Universe covers all designs (Mechs, Warships, Fighters, Support Vessels, ect, ect.....)

I am opening this so that this conversation doesn't hijack the Scalpel (Aerospace Fighter).

There are a really good set of questions that I am hoping that this thread will answer.

Being a designer within this community, I have to look at my own designs and wonder if my designs are guilty of power gaming.

First: What is the definition Power Gaming in designs? Is Power Gaming in designs meant to be viewed as a social pariah by the community (as seen in other threads within this forum)?

Second: Isn't the idea of designing craft, supposed to maximize the advantages of craft/mech for a given role?

Third: If we are designing crafts with known/clear weaknesses, then aren't we creating inferior designs for the sake of social media support?

Forth: Is there a way to correct the creation/design process to prevent Power Gaming without undermining our designs?

Fifth: As mentioned by a member of this community. As long as the players of a table top group are enjoying themselves, does it really matter if they are power gaming in designs?

Lastly: Does Power Gaming in designs apply to custom designs meant for only the elite pilot that designed the craft? Or does Power Gaming in designs apply to all designs regardless of intent?

I am sure that other questions will come up. Please feel free to answer all or anyone of these questions. I don't think that there are right or wrong answers. But this is a worthy conversation where difference in views/opinions should be expressed.

Akira
ghostrider
03/22/16 01:22 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There is a very fine line between powergaming/munchy designs and a well made design for the rest of the world.
The issues is defining it, since everyone has their own opinions of what is acceptable.

But let's first answer the one question in the other thread. Neutral conversation is difficult at best, as you are dealing with peoples basic ideas and concepts of play the game. This will get emotionally charged, and staying away from that will not be as easy as some would think.

Now the idea of power gaming isn't new or even out there. It is natural to want the best design, player, unit, what ever you are dealing with when playing games. It is no fun to lose because the game tends to send you in against the worst odds at times.
I am going to say D&D is a good thing to show so it doesn't take the personal attack mode that would be easy to get into here.
Players want the god characters that can blink and destroy a planet. Not fun once you get there, but that tends to be the end result. My best character is illegal yet legal by the rule. A 25/21 level gray elf fighter/magic user. I use a wish to allow me to continue to advance past the normal level limits. So level is illegal by the normal rules, but the wish following those same rules counter acted it. So munchy/power gaming is very likely to be used against them.
Where I differ from most, is I don't have a counter for anything and everything on the character. I don't have protection from psionics or things like that. I do not instantly heal, other then the ability to do so 3 times a day from one of the swords I use. I am not 100% magic resistant, only 10% at this time.
And that is a bit much. I have toned down the character a little more as it was on the verge of being a god character.

With this being said, I am guilty of the power gaming fever. But there is a point where it is fun for the group for a while, but compared to others, there would be no way in hell they would even want to hear about it.
Why?
Because it intrudes on what they consider a good healthy game. And since this is opinions, this gets into a nasty area of conversation.

I honestly think the pulse laser need to drop to just +1 and not be allowed with target comps, but that is just me. Something about the micro movements, that are no longer stated in the rules with the new editions, gives me the feeling of the missile issues. The cluster shots of the ac's doesn't add much, and has the munitions on target role to help counter it.
I had issues with the cloaking, cews and ecm, issues with retrys mechs. It violates what I consider is the spirit of the rules, though again, that is opinion. I don't like hardened armor as it makes me feel like it is another violation of the rules. Reflective also sounds backwards, in the evolution of the game, as they should be weaker against the other forms of combat. Ie, reflective should take MORE damage from ballistics and explosives. Hardened might take more from energy weapons.
The cloaks should only be effective for an ambush in the first round then not be useful afterwards. Some would be right and suggest that makes the system almost useless other then set up.

But I haven't really answered any of your questions in my opinion.
Power gaming seems to be when you do everything in your power to make an unstoppable unit that defies the games intended goals, with things that are considered borderline cheating. An argument of using a ship capital weapon against a ground hex like artillery to destroy units in that hex, like an orbital bombardment. Why can't you mount them in towers on a ridge and destroy anything in range? Overboard, but valid.

The only way to really think of a good response to the second question is not an easy one. Each person has their idea of what is ok in their gaming world. For most, it seems the limits are not as extreme as others. I find it interesting that some of those that go to further lengths then others seem to be close to concepts that would allow others to match their designs without doing the same thing. It might be ego that is causing this conflict. I hate to say it, but there is no absolute right way that fits all players concepts. And yes, I will still put in my ideas of what I consider right and wrong, even though they might be against the written rules.

The game balance was supposed to help prevent the idea of exploitation of the design rules, but there are occasionally those that find a way around them. To be honest, even the developers did not follow the idea of a perfect unit. You would figure after years of running the game, they would have ultimate designs in the game. The awesome is a great mech, and one of the best designed units. Hate it as much as you want, it is probably one of the best designs. Not perfect, but it is a strong unit. For some players they love to jump making it look foolish, and with good skills even a slug with no ability to do much. If you win init, you have the advantage all day long. The initial disadvantage was the minimum range for the ppcs. Jump right, and you avoided that issue. That was removed with extended range. And now, pulse lasers are the replacement options.
ghostrider
03/22/16 01:36 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Got a little long and comp was acting like it would time out, so broke this up.

To answer question 4, would mean having concrete rules and telling everyone they could not play in some ways that some like. An example that comes to mind would be alignment issues with games. Most would think a game like Vampire: The masquarade would be unthinkable. Who in their right mind would want to play anything but an angel, much less a vampire or werewolf? But people do. Some want to play out a fantasy of being the pillaging pirate raiding ships and sacking towns. Trying to say you can't is a problem as it is supposed to be a game. As long as you don't do it in real life, then no one can say much about it. So I guess alot of this comes down to that fact.

The idea of power gaming is much like people knowing the loop holes in the game and abusing them. I base this on someone brand new coming into the game, having never played or seen it played. What would they do or know in their first game? Would you know a small laser doesn't fire as far as a large laser? You would think damage would be the only difference, not range, as lasers should be line of sight.
Missiles. Given the real world examples, a long range missile would be an icbm, while a short range missile would be a sidewinder. Almost a guaranteed hit, but range and payload would be different, and I am not talking under a kilometer range total.
I would like to know if the initial design team thought the game would be played out with just bracket firing, or did they realize people would overheat every round trying to fire it all. The limits of things seems to lean toward bracket firing.

In the end, no matter what is stated here, it is the players group the decides what is right for them. A few will argue to keep the concept limited to their groups and not cause others to think it is the ONLY way to play. Right or wrong, there will always be a difference of opinions. For D&D, my character was the weakest, as I did NOT try to cover the flaws up like the rest of the group I played with. I hate when others do it, so try to avoid it myself.

I think the concept of fairness is the base issue here.

You asked about using the designs for elite pilots, but why reserve them just for the elites? I would think you could make life alot easier by using the design for all your troops. Not having to have actuators and such for all weights, but maybe 3 designs. If you make a 55 ton design that can handle most anything on it's own, why would you want to have 4 more in that weight or even close? But that might be a new thread.
Akirapryde2006
03/22/16 02:46 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There was one part of both posts I wanted to clarify.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Missiles. Given the real world examples, a long range missile would be an icbm, while a short range missile would be a sidewinder. Almost a guaranteed hit, but range and payload would be different, and I am not talking under a kilometer range total.



I would have to disagree with you Ghost.

Being former military, there are far batter examples of these missile weapons in the real world.
SRM - I agree the Sidewinder is a good match for this weapon. As is the stinger or other similar real world missiles.

LRM - I would suggest looking at the ARM, Sparrow missiles or other similar medium ranged missiles.

Arrow - This could be any medium ranged missile such as the Standard Missile, other short range artillery missiles.

Sup Cap/Capital Missiles would be more in line with your range of ballistic missiles.
ghostrider
03/22/16 03:39 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
exaggerated, I agree. But it was a quick example of some issues.

The idea was to compare pay loads with ranges. Not sure if a sidewinder could take out a bunker, but an icbm is more likely to take out a city block then the sidewinder.

And with the range of a standard lrm in the game being 630 meters, while the standard srm only reaches 270, someone that doesn't understand that will be at a loss verse someone that knows how to get the bonus behind a building, yet not be penalized for it would dominate over the person that doesn't know the leg mounted weapons can not fire over a level 1 hill.

That is where power gaming starts having major issues. Even minimum ranges can destroy the game. Trick a new person into using an archer against almost any other mech in a heavy cover environment. The spirit of the game gets destroyed. But there is nothing but the persons point of view to keep that from happening.
KamikazeJohnson
03/22/16 04:50 PM
24.114.42.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

First: What is the definition Power Gaming in designs? Is Power Gaming in designs meant to be viewed as a social pariah by the community (as seen in other threads within this forum)?


As Ghostrider pointed out, definitions vary. My take on it is this: deliberately sacrificing realism (and fun) for the sake of winning is Power Gaming.

It's tricky to give a solid BattleTech example, so I'll also refetence D&D. A Power Gamer in D&D will stick the lowest stat roll for each character to Charisma, except for the one character who will do all the talking. The Mage will have a Strength of 6 or less, because he won't be fighting anyway, etc. Which is fine if you want to demolish a single-player computer game, but it really hurts a pen-and-paper group session.

Quote:
Second: Isn't the idea of designing craft, supposed to maximize the advantages of craft/mech for a given role?

Third: If we are designing crafts with known/clear weaknesses, then aren't we creating inferior designs for the sake of social media support?


Depends what you consider a weakness. In a Power Gamer's universe, a Specialist unit is never caught out of its element, or without lancemates to cover its , but in the Real World, those things happen.

Probably the best BattleTech example I can think of is one that caused a HUGE argument on here many years ago (Karagin hated the thing). It was a 100-ton Clan 'Mech that carried 4 ERPPCs and a full 30 DHS. 60 points of damage per turn at range with no ammo or overheat. No effective option to fight it. Powerful, but no fun for anyone else in the game, on either side.

Quote:
Forth: Is there a way to correct the creation/design process to prevent Power Gaming without undermining our designs?


Not likely. Power Gamers are highly creative, and many of the combinations they create to maximize their designs are nothing short of brilliant. Prohibiting Aimed Shots with TC-guided Pulse Lasers is a start, but it's not practical to identify and prohibit every potentially game-breaking combination.

Quote:
Fifth: As mentioned by a member of this community. As long as the players of a table top group are enjoying themselves, does it really matter if they are power gaming in designs?


That's the key to it. If they're all having fun with their Overpowered Munchkin Machines, nothing wrong with that. The problem is when one of those players joins another group for a game and goes off on them for playing Stock 3025 models when the should be using Custom Mixed-Tech design i.e. The Only 'Mechs Worth Playing.

That said, I've done my share of Power Gamer designing, and in fact throwing a bunch of ridiculously Minimaxed designs into an fight to the death can be a blast. Case in point, I was in such a match last weekend. The 6-way Free-For-All included the 2-time defending champion...a 100-tonner with full Hardened Armour, Reinforced Structure, TSM, Targeting Computer, 14 ER Small Lasers and 12 Light MGs. He almost won a third time, placing a close 2nd in spite of spending the whole match begging people to kill him so he wouldn't have to use that design again next time.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
03/22/16 08:29 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Probably the best BattleTech example I can think of is one that caused a HUGE argument on here many years ago (Karagin hated the thing). It was a 100-ton Clan 'Mech that carried 4 ERPPCs and a full 30 DHS. 60 points of damage per turn at range with no ammo or overheat. No effective option to fight it. Powerful, but no fun for anyone else in the game, on either side.



Got excited for a moment, was thinking my mech was going to get an honorable mention. Ah well.
Karagin doesn't like many vehicle designs anyways. I guess it doesn't have character unless it's as goofy as a Bob Semple complete with a "shoot-here" sign. I think the only time I've seen him accept something that was actually unique was some sort of Urbanmech (UrbieLAM, maybe, idk).

---------------------------------------------------------------

1.What is the definition Power Gaming in designs?

The technical definition is the following:

"Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems, particularly video games, boardgames, and role-playing games, with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie."

In other words, they're playing exclusively to win whatever situation they're in. Exclusively is the key operating word here: A design that is extremely good or unique in and of itself does not qualify as power-gaming. If it has fluff to explain its existence and its usage that ascends "This design is made from the heavens and it smites all your puny mechs", it likely isn't power-gaming.

---------------------------------------------------------------

2.Isn't the idea of designing craft, supposed to maximize the advantages of craft/mech for a given role?

Historically, yes. In-universe, yes. Sometimes a design, both historically and in-universe, simply fails to fulfill the maximization of its capability for whatever reason. Out-of-universe, a person may choose to add a flaw on purpose and fluff it as some sort of in-universe flaw or oversight.

---------------------------------------------------------------

3.If we are designing crafts with known/clear weaknesses, then aren't we creating inferior designs for the sake of social media support?

Can you elaborate on this? I have no idea what you mean or where you're going with this.

---------------------------------------------------------------

4.Is there a way to correct the creation/design process to prevent Power Gaming without undermining our designs?

There are two ways to go about this:
1.Simplify the design and combat system so much to render Power Gaming impossible (removing the possibilities and combinations required for a power gaming design to exist
2.Abolish the design process altogether and force players to use certain vehicles and molds.

Obviously, no one wants either of these to happen. One of BT's great strengths is customization. Correcting the design process and combat rules can increase the possible roles of a given unit type and make certain vehicles much more dynamic and interesting (Warships, Aerospace, and Wet Naval Vessels are particularly guilty of "blandness".), but it simply will not stop what's known as power gaming unless one of the two above criteria are met.

---------------------------------------------------------------

5.As long as the players of a table top group are enjoying themselves, does it really matter if they are power gaming in designs?

No, of course not. However, the ability to adapt to other groups and their preferences is always helpful.

---------------------------------------------------------------

6.Does Power Gaming in designs apply to custom designs meant for only the elite pilot that designed the craft? Or does Power Gaming in designs apply to all designs regardless of intent?

Depends on the person, both the power gamer and the interpreter. Some power gamers focus solely on an arena setting (so elite pilot and C-bill cost is irrelevant, possibly BV too). Others may include the strategic setting and maximize a ratio of effectiveness to C-bills or BV, depending on the rules of the gaming group.

The classic interpretation of the BT P-G seems to be the former interpretation; the Arena Elite Super-Power. Still, some people consider vehicles with few, small, or no obvious flaws to conventional designs (in other words, well-made) to be a form of Power Gaming in itself.
Karagin
03/22/16 08:34 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As was said the want to win at all cost is power gaming, any game any system. We see it all the time in Battletech, the designs that are maxed for damage and no heat or at the most one heat point. The abuse of the pulse/targ combo, all of the min/max designs that take the fun of using a risky mech and still wining out of the game.

Defining it is easy, max tonnage all the time, and still have the best speed, armor, uber tech wonder weapons and other toys and when a design can blast a canon mech, which should be the benchmaker for anyone, out of the way in two turns something is really wrong.

Same power gamer is the one who also knows the rules to the letter, that way he or she can't be called a cheater by the others present. Normally you see these types at conventions or tournaments, the ones who have to have the best of the book mechs if they are forced to not use their wonder mechs.

We all want to win, that is normal, but if the fun of the game is lost then there is no point in continuing playing if all the others are going to power game to the point that you have no choice but to play that style.

Munchy designs are close to the power gamer but have so many levels or styles. Sure is it crazy to run a Locust with max speed and flammers, but for a munchkin who wants to set things on fire well hey sure, it will die pretty fast too.

The issue I have, and this is my take, is when you post a design that is over the top and know this, and then get upset when folks say something about it or ask hey this is pretty powerful for the canon stuff etc...we all have our designs that are to us the best of the best, and others will find them to be total junk. Okay fair enough, and yes we will all defend our designs and ideas, yes I know I am very vocal on things I like etc..., but there comes a point that even you can see that if all your designs are clones of each other with new names and nothing really new, then it might be time to listen to the others on forums and revamp things.

Having a good design or idea isn't a bad thing and anything that adds to the fun of the game is all good, but there has to be some breaks or flaws for balance, prime example, I don't agree with the idea that vehicles can't use endosteel or DHS, the PTB claim its' a balance issue, that if vehicles use these things then mechs will no longer be king, I think that is a total mountain of BS, but hey it's their game. Now if my group wants to use the two things on vehicles then we do and have fun and go on with playing the game. Point being is to have fun, but when you share your things, remember what is fun for you isn't going to be fun for others.

Maybe we need to do this, picking several of the designs found on here, and run a test battle or two and see what happens.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/22/16 08:37 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

[
Karagin doesn't like many vehicle designs anyways. I guess it doesn't have character unless it's as goofy as a Bob Semple complete with a "shoot-here" sign. I think the only time I've seen him accept something that was actually unique was some sort of Urbanmech (UrbieLAM, maybe, idk).



What I like retry is character, if the vehicle is nothing but a min/maxed uber toy then no I am not going to be a fan of it and would actually ask someone not to use if they are playing at the table I am playing at.

And good to see we kept this civil, or did we?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
KamikazeJohnson
03/22/16 08:54 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

Quote:
Probably the best BattleTech example I can think of is one that caused a HUGE argument on here many years ago (Karagin hated the thing). It was a 100-ton Clan 'Mech that carried 4 ERPPCs and a full 30 DHS. 60 points of damage per turn at range with no ammo or overheat. No effective option to fight it. Powerful, but no fun for anyone else in the game, on either side.



Got excited for a moment, was thinking my mech was going to get an honorable mention. Ah well.



It came to mind...I actually considered using the Mixed Tech as an example of Power Gaming: cherry picking the best tech from each faction and era to create an Unstoppable Death Machine.

I can't say too much about it though...it was the inspiration for the 'Mech I took into the arena last weekend.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/22/16 10:52 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Defining it is easy, max tonnage all the time, and still have the best speed, armor, uber tech wonder weapons and other toys and when a design can blast a canon mech, which should be the benchmaker for anyone, out of the way in two turns something is really wrong.



So your saying that one is a power gamer if one does not create something that is crappier than the crap that is what the game designers came up with in the first place? Then I am and I will always be a power gamer to you because I want to make the better mouse trap and not an even shitter mouse trap than what is already out there. I will suggest that when ever I post any kind of design that you just pass it buy because I am looking to make the best mouse trap that I can within the rules.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Akalabeth
03/22/16 10:55 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Complaining about min-maxed Fan designs is kind of pointless in a game system where mechs like the Hellstar and Gausszilla are canon. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss it, but some of the worst possible designs in Battletech already exist in the game.

Min-maxing isn't only a game problem, it's a player problem. It's fine if a group of players subscribe to that point of view but if players are of opposing views, then they really ought to play some other opponents. Either that, or come to an agreement where both sides of the game can have fun by for example alternating game types. The whole point of even playing the game is having fun, if both sides aren't having fun then both sides wont be playing anyone in a short amount of time.


Edited by Akalabeth (03/22/16 10:57 PM)
Retry
03/22/16 11:58 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I'm glad you brought up the Hellstar, Akalabeth. Apparently BTU canon beat the munchkin by a couple years.

So about those benchmark canons...
ghostrider
03/23/16 12:54 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The mixing of tech to create the ultimate unit does seem to be where the power gaming part tends to happen the most. No real down sides with all the perks. The whole slammers design brought forth issues with people and doing just this sort of thing. Nothing normal can really touch the unit, weither a single mech or a company.
I admit, I like knowing my character will survive the invasion unless some fluke die roll ends them. Most people get some sort of good feeling from killing a company of units with just their unit.
But there is a difference between skill of the player and just using averages to destroy anything on the field. I know my 5's will wipe out their 7's so I am not even concerned they might hit me. My 20 shots will win, and I still won't worry about overheating. Crap like that kills the fun.

Now with using standard units, the lack of design is not something that kills a game. Robotech doesn't allow you do design mecha from scratch. That requires some good character building, though it does push towards the power gaming setting as not everyone can be the boxing champion of the same ship.

As with most games,, people find what works and abuse that ability.

And there are instances that the developers created issue with over the top things. The stealth skill for one. I need to look it up, but in the 1st/2nd edition of mechwarrior rpg, they had Natasha Kerensky set up with a -1 gunnery. And she was not maxed out on her physical traits. 12 stat score with maxed skill score allowed that.
Others included Phelan Ward, and Kai Allard. Both were set up with natural ability gunnery, when they banned it from being possible.
Technically a few units might be considered overpowered when they first came out. The demolisher tank would be one. In a tight environment, the dual 20s were a huge threat. But people found ways around it. Normally something like a jumping spider might be missed enough to do their damage and get away several times.
The example of firing off the main weapons and only building a single heat point is the 8q awesome if it doesn't move, so that could fall under the powergamer label. I would have to check the stats for the hellstar, but it was only a matter of time before a massed gauss rifle unit came to the field. If not for the crit issue, the Alacorn tank should be a nightmare for anything that faces it in an open field. Speed counters the to hit, but that is a 'flaw'.

Now the interesting thing about the canon monsters is they seem to always have some reason why it does not become the main unit for the state that builds it. But this is getting away from the power gamer topic.
Karagin
03/23/16 06:17 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Retry and Donkey, the point, is if you min/max something to the point that it is so much better then anything else found in the game to include what the other players have made then you are using loop holes to win.

Example, 4 large pulse lasers, targeting computer, enough heat sinks to fire till the sun goes nova, and max armor for the weight class, max speed, etc...and then you put the elite pilot that you built min/maxing the RPG and you now have a machine and warrior that can kill the best of the best with no real issues.

Power gaming and min/maxing ruin the fun of the game, they take away from the fun. You end up with death machines that slug it out for hours on end and then it all comes down to who can win the dice roll. Where is the fun?

I am not saying you have to build crappy mechs Donkey, I am saying you don't have to get all the cool in one machine. Things are suppose to be a compromise, which is what the books mechs normally are, they are good, some are great, some suck and others are well we wonder why they were ever made and yes some go to the extreme as well. But the point is each has it's place and none of them are totally perfect. Where as with the power gamer or the min/max gamer you don't ever see their wonder toys having flaws, the only flaw I have seen for our one major Min/Max Power gamer is when we see those 100 ton plus crawling pillbox tanks, nor do we see them having to worry about damage really because they have max armor, and normally we don't see these things using ammo weapons unless it's a really cool weapon, so very limited chances of an ammo cook-off etc...

So what I am getting here is that for some you could care less about folks abusing the construction rules and using loop holes to win at all cost, which to me is an odd way of playing this game.

And yes Retry, the canon mechs are the benchmarks, again if your home designs are wiping them out with ease then that alone should tell you something, it should be telling you that you have a design that is not balanced for normal play and thus could indeed fall into the levels of power gaming or munchkin designs.

So let me ask this, you are invited to play with a group, and they say sure bring your best designs, and give you a BV or tonnage limit for the fight and you show up, battle starts and you find your self facing mechs that almost alone can take out a lance of medium mechs with relative ease by itself, now are you going to keep playing or are you going to start wondering what the hell is going on?

The darker side of power gamers and min/max gamers are they are hiding something, either they are out right cheating, like their 100 ton Archer with 6 LRM20s and 4 tons ammo per launcher or they have some combo of systems that the rules are vague on or not fully clear and are using their own take on what should happen.

Style of play will differ, but if the style is to win at the cost of the fun of the game, what is the point of playing?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/23/16 06:21 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:



So your saying that one is a power gamer if one does not create something that is crappier than the crap that is what the game designers came up with in the first place? Then I am and I will always be a power gamer to you because I want to make the better mouse trap and not an even shitter mouse trap than what is already out there. I will suggest that when ever I post any kind of design that you just pass it buy because I am looking to make the best mouse trap that I can within the rules.



Building a good mech doesn't mean you need to min/max it to the point that it has everything going for it and nothing against it. If you don't like that folks will tell you that, then maybe you shouldn't share you designs, since once shared you have everyone offering their 10cents worth of ideas, comments good or bad and everything else as well as rebuilding it so it reflects what they think is better or best.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/23/16 06:22 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Here is an idea, let's each pick mechs from the forums that we feel are examples of things gone way over the top for what we each see as Power games or min/max gamers or total munchkin gamers. List them and then we can all see what each of us has in mind for this topic. Anyone game?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/23/16 11:50 AM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Others don't have the same opinion as you and are quite free to post their designs despite your disapproval. As I said a few times before over the years if you dont like what others design no one is holding a gun to your head to read it. Your are quite free to ignore a post, a thread, or even everything that an individual or group of people post.

If Sarna.net enforced the standards that you do I would have left an hour after finding the web site and would had never returned.

You do know that you have every right to create your own website and have your own rules where your so called no Min/Max distaste can have a person banned. Just don't expect it to be all that popular of a web site.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
ghostrider
03/23/16 12:32 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maybe shifting some of the focus. Maybe it should be said the unit does not use cover or even move and can wipe out a lance of medium mechs.
Some people are good at playing the game properly, and using terrain and tactics to win the game, but they use the overpowered units as well. It may be blurring the lines of what is a good powerful mech, and the 'munchy' mechs.

I can see where the difference of opinions is getting to the point of hurt feelings again. I thought this thread was supposed to get some idea on what people considered too far when playing, but it is difficult, as people DO have a difference of opinion on what they feel is acceptable.

There are some things that do call into question the idea of some units.
The heat neutrality. Why not have another weapon or 2 and volley fire instead of alpha fire?
The chance of taking out another unit quickly in the first volley would be worth trying to pull back a round or so to cool while still firing shots. Most seem to want the alpha fire every round.
The max armor for the weight. Even losing armor points as you put in that extra half ton of weight for that 1 more point. Goes to the heat neutral concept. Why bother with adding another weapon you might use and actually have to cool down, when a single point will save the mech? Even adding in something else, like a pretty useless probe, or something like it.

As been brought up before. The idea of using something like an ac 20 would be considered blasphemous because of the ammo restraints and the lack of range as well as being too heavy/bulky. 4 mls would cover the 20 easily, and be a better value.

I can see the 'balance' issue being what causes alot of the 'need' for power gaming. Competition does so as well.

And the test of those units that are considered overpowered. See how they do without them moving at all. Just stand and fire. NO terrain to hide in/behind. That might be a good way to show just how bad they really are.
Akalabeth
03/23/16 02:48 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If a guy likes to run Pulse Boats with TC then run Laser Reflective armour with Plasma Rifles and Inferno SRMs.

Or hell run a Kraken with its 8 LRM-15s.
CrayModerator
03/23/16 06:06 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Power gaming and min/maxing ruin the fun of the game, they take away from the fun. You end up with death machines that slug it out for hours on end and then it all comes down to who can win the dice roll. Where is the fun?



That sounds a lot like you're trying to tell other players how they enjoy the game. Maybe if you added a few clarifications like, "Power gaming and min/maxing ruin the fun of the game for me" then there wouldn't be any confusion.

While on the topic of what players enjoy:

Right now I'm running a 3005 campaign with damage tracked between battles for archaic, salvage-supported 'Mechs of all tonnages and a miserly contract from the Lyrans. That's fun for my group. I wouldn't expect other gamers, like ATN, to enjoy it.

But when we can't get all the players together, our quick pickup games will sometimes include 200-ton superheavy 'Mechs that are nothing but Gausszillas and pulse flashbulbs. Those are fun for us, too, and usually resolved a lot faster than 3025-era battles. The amount of firepower between semi-mobile giants is amusing to us because it is so completely munchkin, a diet-busting high calorie dessert that we wouldn't get to see in a regular campaign. Obviously, I wouldn't expect you to enjoy one-off, non-campaign duels like that.

Point being: different players will play the same game different ways for different ways of having fun. Since the folks on this forum are probably never going to sit across a BT board from you, trying to force them into a different perspective for your benefit is going to fall flat.

You might as well go to a Heart Attack Grill and tell diners that everyone really enjoys gluten-free, organic, non-GMO vegan tofu and thus they're mistaken for eating at the Heart Attack Grill.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Akirapryde2006
03/23/16 08:14 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

Others don't have the same opinion as you and are quite free to post their designs despite your disapproval. As I said a few times before over the years if you dont like what others design no one is holding a gun to your head to read it. Your are quite free to ignore a post, a thread, or even everything that an individual or group of people post.

If Sarna.net enforced the standards that you do I would have left an hour after finding the web site and would had never returned.

You do know that you have every right to create your own website and have your own rules where your so called no Min/Max distaste can have a person banned. Just don't expect it to be all that popular of a web site.



Donkey, don't you think that your statement here are Hypocritical?

After all, you failed to uphold this very point of view on some of my own designs. Even calling two of them out for being illegal for how I handle Crew Quarters.

Look I am all for voicing your opinion, but you don't get to call others out for doing the same and holding them to a higher standard that you are unwilling to hold yourself.

What I am opposed to, is the hijacking of a thread simply to berate the OP/Design or Poster. Something that you, Donkey, are guilty of!

Akira
Karagin
03/23/16 08:18 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Amazing we are having a discussion and since I don't support several folks take, my opinion is wrong...wow. So much for civil and I am so glad that some are so sure their stuff is perfect etc...

First of Cray, I stated from the start my posts were my opinion, try reading all of the posting before jumping but hey I guess you don't do that any more.

As for Retry and Donkey, their comments are their opinions, and frankly if I don't like them, I will say so, other wise if I agree I will say so. So can we all get over our egos and go back to talking about the topic not our egos or is that asking to much?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/23/16 08:21 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

Others don't have the same opinion as you and are quite free to post their designs despite your disapproval. As I said a few times before over the years if you dont like what others design no one is holding a gun to your head to read it. Your are quite free to ignore a post, a thread, or even everything that an individual or group of people post.

If Sarna.net enforced the standards that you do I would have left an hour after finding the web site and would had never returned.

You do know that you have every right to create your own website and have your own rules where your so called no Min/Max distaste can have a person banned. Just don't expect it to be all that popular of a web site.



Where did I say that it had to be that way Donkey? Last I check this thread was talking about Power gaming and such and what we thought about the issue or idea. Yet some how you, Retry and now Cray are fast trying to turn this into a flame war of you three against me, nice try. Stuff like this is why I asked Nic for moderators. Clearly for some the idea that their toys are not perfect there is something wrong with others not them.

Who said anything about banning folks? Don't recall me saying that one, And Donkey, I think you need to step back and chill out or take your own advice and go make your own site. Meanwhile I think and to make Cray happy, IN MY OPINION we need to stick to the topic NOT our egos.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/23/16 08:23 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

You might as well go to a Heart Attack Grill and tell diners that everyone really enjoys gluten-free, organic, non-GMO vegan tofu and thus they're mistaken for eating at the Heart Attack Grill.



And this has what to do with what?

Where is your disclaimer about your opinion on what players like Cray?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/23/16 08:28 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Let me clear up something real fast, I don't care about how folks play at their tables, if it works for them great. BUT when you share your ideas in a public setting, you should be adult enough to take the comments good or bad and go from there. Seems that here in this thread several wait actually THREE persons have decided that their interpretation of things is what I have said, well all three of you are in fact wrong.

I have played many games where someone has the uber mech from hell, or thought they did, was it fun for me, not really, but I made what I could out of it. And yes I have had the games were we have tossed all the silly mechs into a fight and gone from there, fun but not something I personally want to do each time I play.

So how about we all check our egos or what ever at the door and talk about the topic as we were asked from the start or did some miss that?

And I also think we need another moderator to check in to this to keep things civil and fair and less bias.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/24/16 12:54 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I do not remember Karagin saying that people could not play with munchy mechs, or run power games. He suggested it was detrimental to the game as it tends to send others to find a new group to play with.
He suggested it was not something he himself liked to play that style of game.

And that also goes counter to those that suggest it is the only way to play. Play to win, or don't show up isn't a great attitude either.
People like certain styles of play and will try to find a way to do it their way. Suggesting either side would fail as no one wants to play that way is wrong on both sides. There are people on both sides of this fence, and as long as the game is fun, they will play it.

I admit the win at all costs rubs me wrong. Don't know why, but it does. And no. I do NOT play lawful good characters in D&D. Too restrictive. I do think the min/max destroys having to use intellegent use of terrain and other things in a game, and as I said before, my liking of ac20s probably distorts this even more.
I do think there is a limit to what should be done, and I will state that. That is not saying you can NOT do it, but something that should be avoided in everything you do. But this statement boils down to everyone elses. My opinion.

I know both sides are taking offense, as someone is saying their opinion is wrong.
Now if you want to throw around accusations, why does it seem alot of the min/max people dislike new ideas that even the playing field? The vehicle issue, and even turrets seems to be something they don't want.
A few other suggestions were shot down because it would limit the 'masters of mayhem' designs that are out there. Imagine a tank that has the cloaking abilities with the large pulse laser configuration with a target comp. If you remove the crit issue, it does what? Destroys the mech as king of the field?
Double heat sinks would do the same?
A turret that would allow you to bring all the firepower on a warship to bare in one arc?
They aren't canon rules, so therefore not subject to exploiting holes in the rules.
Ok. I get that. Pulse lasers are overpowered.
But in this game all energy weapons are overpowered as they are not as heavy as ballistic weapons, nor do they run out of ammo. Given the choice between an ac 2 and a pair of mls, most here would go with the mls. Range has no real bearing on this one.
With the free heatsinks a fusion engine gives, doesn't that begin the min/max issues with the game?
10 sinks to not have to deal with makes the fusion engine overpowered compared to the over weighted ICE, which requires sinks, amp and other things to even catch up to the fusion engine.

But the basics of the game doesn't promote abuse of the rules... yeah right.
Akalabeth
03/24/16 03:05 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Let me clear up something real fast, I don't care about how folks play at their tables, if it works for them great.



Quote:
Karagin writes:

So ATN machine returns the Clans back to power gaming, not sure that is a good thing for the game.



Seems you do care mate.


Quote:
Karagin writes:
BUT when you share your ideas in a public setting, you should be adult enough to take the comments good or bad and go from there.



Quote:
Karagin writes:

clearly the ship is about power gaming,



Criticizing a design and criticizing a play style are two different things.
Karagin
03/24/16 07:14 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
When the design causes the players to have to complete change HOW they design their stuff to compete then it is not two different styles. If I am forced to field an uber mech as my only chance to even come close to pulling off a possible win then the power gaming has affected the style of play. Never has the game been about lets' cram every cool weapon and electronic into the mech, vehicle or fighter and wipe the board, recall they watered down the Clans to avoid this and didn't get it 100% but even that should tell you the issue was there and could be abused. So when the demand to win at all cost forces other players to go to that level then the two areas are one and that is what I am against. So my two statements stand, and in no way change that if you want to power game and that is your group or tables' way of playing awesome, just realize others do not play that way and I stand by the second statement, that yes ATN's fighter does return the power gaming element to the Clans since it goes with all the good and none of the bad.

I do care about Battletech, hence why I have been vocal about the silliness of the whole Word of Blake and the storyline that came along with them, seems caring and wanting a fun game don't mesh well with some, but that is dead horse beat so bad that it is gone to paste.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/24/16 09:49 AM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I find it interesting Karagin that your attacking fully legal designs but when someone was clearly posting a design that was blatantly an illegal design you where not only not going after it for being munchy but you would out right defending it.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 30 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 27266


Contact Admins Sarna.net