Power Gaming Designs in the Mechwarrior Universe

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Karagin
03/24/16 10:17 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I find it interesting that you are going after me over an opinion, which illegal design? If you are talking about the crew quarters one, I didn't see anything wrong with that, since, wait for it, the old level 3 rules allowed you to do things like change the weights of stuff and modify things, which if you would take the time to look at dozens of the warships and other space vessels, this has been done by many of us on the board over the years, so I am not sure which illegal design you are alluding too, unless you are speaking of some the hand jammed ones that folks have posted that have math errors or more armor then allowed.

So if you could show an illegal design that breaks the rules as either written prior to the Core books or after them I would be very interested in seeing it.

And I am not attacking anything, I offered my reasons why I don't like it and offered my reasons as to why I think it is too powerful for the game. Just like I nicely told my best friend his four large pulse laser 80 ton mech was over the top since it was min/maxed and pushing the win at all cost, he was yep now come kill the damn thing. So if offering comments on a mechs etc...is considered an attack then I guess we all are in deep kimchee.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
03/24/16 11:09 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Karagin, I think I can field this one.

I believe that it is my design and use of crew quarters that is being called in to question as being illegal. I do not deny that I am using a non-standard method for my crew quarters. If you look on page 150 of the Strategic Operations Manual, you will find the following passage.

At the designer’s option, the “standard procedure” for crew and passenger quarters need not be followed precisely; so long as all non-bay crew receive quarters, the needs of unit construction are satisfied. Designers may thus opt to equip a vessel with other quarter types instead, such as Steerage and Officer/First Class quarters in place of Standard crew quarters. For example, a standard Inner Sphere military DropShip with a crew of 9, plus 2 officers, might normally devote Standard crew quarters to its 9 crewmen and Officer/First Class quarters to its 2 officers. Clan military DropShips tend to be more spartan, and so may bunk their crew—officers and all—in Standard crew quarters.

As I have said multiple times. I have opted to create warships where tonnage was devoted to the mission of the ship, not the comfort of the crew. Which is more in line with real world naval warships and in line with how the novels have portrayed life aboard warships (regardless of Inner Sphere or Clan). I have lowered the tonnage to reflect this option to deviate from the standard procedure. I have placed my junior officers (which is not covered in the rules) in double rooms. I have bunked my enlisted crew members in quads.

So Donkey, allow my ask you this. Does this finally put to rest your grievance against my design? If you can't put to rest your grievance against the way I handle crew quarters, might I suggest your own advice?

Still, as I continue to dig in to the Strategic Operations manual and the Tech Manual, I am finding sections that my ships were lacking critical unit/sections of my ship. To my surprise, my ships were missing MASH Units (Medical Bays), Field Kitchens (Mess Facilities), and Mobile Field Base (Administrations?). According to the Strategic Operations Manual, these things are required to be bought in tonnage and I will be making these corrections within my next revision of all my ship designs. If you think my designs blow your minds now, wait for the revisions. The Tech Manual has given me a lot of new ideas and concepts to push warship designs.

I don't deny that I am pushing limits. Take my Thomas Rein Class Destroyer. I wanted to shorter, stockier, warship that could turn tighter (no the rules don't allow for that, but I wanted it in the fluff only). So what did I do, I dropped all my broadside weapon mounts and removed this section of my ship. The idea is that the ship would be shorter than other destroyers. Though the end result didn't really measure up. Still, it was a press in that direction.

Take my Viscount Hall Class Corvette and its warship turrets. Talking about stirring the pot. But I knew that this was a daring step. The ship was listed as experimental and opened up a conversation about warship turrets. Karagin even offered to play test the design for me.

So no, I don't deny that I am pushing limits. But at the same time, I don't like or approve of having my thread hijacked over how I created my design either. Just like what is happening in other threads.

Everyone here has offered up their comments on powergaming. Cray offered up (over email) a really good test about how this subject is handled.

If the OP is okay with the comments, and the conversation is civil, than allow it to continue. I know that I have benefited from several conversations about my own designs. These conversations have even brought me to buy the aforementioned books (something I had previously said I wouldn't do, might I point out my own growth here).

If the OP has asked that such posts/comments be withheld (like I have in the past), honor the request. After all, this is a social media cite that is operated for the enjoyment of all.

If you see that the situation is turning south, then speak up (like what Karagin and Cray have done on my behalf) to put an end to the conversation. You could do what I have done for ATN082268 and open up a new thread to move the conversation to.

Listen, even in power gaming designs, some inspiration can be found. Even if you hate the design, try to be constructive and not berating or belittling.

No one is saying you can't offer your opinion. But no one needs to take their opinion five, six posts deep. Or have the opinion spread through multiple threads/designs. If you see your own action within this, you might want to reconsider offering your opinion to that person. Remember the old line, "you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink."

Akira


Edited by Akirapryde2006 (03/24/16 11:16 AM)
ghostrider
03/24/16 12:33 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of criticizing a design and the way people play, seems to go hand in hand at times. A design that is over powered using the letter of the rules to defeat the perceived spirit of the rules ties directly into how people play. The nuke mech that glows in the dark for 2 turns as the alpha fires off dozens of pulse/tc lasters combos in order to destroy a mech on the first shot, and not worry about anything but shut down, since there is no ammo, does seem to be an issue. This is an example, as there hasn't been one to do that yet, but it is meant to show the connection.

And that seems to be the basis of this disagreement.
What is the perceived way to play the game?

Everyone wants to win, and without having the uber skills, the design is the only real way to do that. Tactics help, but take a locust up against a battlemaster. There is only so much you can do. 5 points for the laser, with 4 points if both mgs hit. You will be there for hours, while the master got range to begin with, and with a ppc hit, take off a limb, and the lasers, srms, and mgs back, it is just luck that holds you in the game for a while. Sooner or later you will lose init, and that will be it.
This is barring the thru armor crit that takes out gyros or engines.

So some come up with things like the lrm boats that would destroy most dropships with a single volley, or the gauss rifle carrier. They can be effective, but unless you sit back and fire from extreme ranges, has some issues.
But with clan tech, minimum range is screwed up so bad, they are not a drawback like they should be. The pulse/comp is one alot like to abuse, but as I said. The rules set it up, then removed the aim shots from it. They need to go a step further. This combination is too powerful.
TigerShark
03/24/16 12:43 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Chiming in on this from a functional perspective.

Each change to the design should have a basis within the fictional world. For example, a 1st Succession War design might take a basic chassis and add Star League equipment to it. But HOW is this done?

Scenario 1: An STK-3F is being upgraded with ER Large Lasers and Artemis-IV. This creates a deficit of 4 tons.

The upgrade in itself isn't "power gaming;" it falls within the fluff that the Houses would take advantage of new tech. But where those 4 tons come from is where the 'power gaming' comes in. Is it logical that they'd install Double Heat Sinks? From a design perspective, yes. In-universe, maybe not. Since these nations wouldn't have a steady supply of endo steel, they may decide it too risky.

Method 1: Remove (4) heat sinks and swap out 16 SHS --> 16 DHS.
Method 2: Remove (4) Medium Lasers

The first Method creates a high-tech monster which is superior in every way to its predecessor. That's closer to the "power gaming" definition than the second Method, which creates an experimental design that offsets benefits for weaknesses.
Akalabeth
03/24/16 04:06 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

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.



Do you play with ATN? If not, who cares what he designs?
You're attacking his design because you don't care for the style of play that you feel it represents but if you don't like that style of play then just ignore it.

What someone does in their own gaming group doesn't affect how I play Battletech in the slightest.

Back in 3025-era I heard through the usenets or old forum that someone abused the game by designing an Atlas with 39 medium lasers. It would fire. Shutdown, and then start up again (or get destroyed). But in the meantime it's doing potentially 195 damage. Is it munchy, power-gaming, broken? Yeah. Do I care? No.

Save your passion for the official game. Want to get angry about something, get angry about some dumb things that CGL does (like the 3145 PDF money grab). Or for the power gamers in your own play group. Beyond that I don't see how it's worthwhile.
Karagin
03/24/16 05:33 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Akalabeth do you play with ATN?

So let me see if I am following you and Donkey, you two want anyone who is critical of your designs to ignore them if we are not happy with them or feel they are over powering or unbalancing the game, Sorry but you are sharing your ideas on a public setting, where folks will respond and offer their input. So if you guys are worried that your toys or ATNs will be criticized then why share them at all?

Thing is I am not angry, seems many of you keep imposing your feelings into this, I am not angry over anything other then how you guys are getting upset over a topic that asked for our opinions on things. Might I suggest you go back and read the first posting?

The point Akalabeth in case you missed it is that the idea of someone playing to win at all cost and using the loop holes and the whole power gaming idea ruins the fun for all at the table, UNLESS the whole group is fielding the uber mechs then there is not going to be much fun for those using a Summoner or Rook or a Pinion etc...

As for the stuff CGL does, well I can tell you first hand they have enough defenders of the party line that complaining doesn't change anything and pointing out their mistakes only earns you animosity of their friends who troll the hell out of the online forums. Go the main BT forums run by CGL and post your last comments about the 3145PDF and see how long before you are banned.

And I am happy to say my group of players doesn't have power gamers, we actually play to have fun and try to have battle that allows all the chance to win IF they can use the items they have in a manner that allows them to gain the advantage and win. Which means we have fun and no matter the out come we are all happy, because we had fun.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
03/24/16 05:55 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Really, Karagin? How can you step down and ask everyone to sheath their egos after entering the thread in a defensive and anvilicious stance?

The discussion was forming along perfectly smoothly and civilly prior.
Akalabeth
03/24/16 06:42 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Akalabeth do you play with ATN?

So let me see if I am following you and Donkey, you two want anyone who is critical of your designs to ignore them if we are not happy with them or feel they are over powering or unbalancing the game, Sorry but you are sharing your ideas on a public setting, where folks will respond and offer their input. So if you guys are worried that your toys or ATNs will be criticized then why share them at all?



Yeah, hi, I'm the guy who said the Scalpel is "a bit boring because it's so single-minded". The Scalpel itself is honestly, not much to get stressed about in the first place. Clan Aerospace fighters are in general obscenely over-gunned.


The Kirghiz B has 5 LRM-20s and 3 ER PPCs

The Scytha B has 5 Large Pulse Lasers and a Targeting Computer
The Scytha C has 2 Gauss, 2 ER PPC, 2 Med Pulse

The Jengiz E has 6 ER LLs with 72 heat dissipation

What is there to get worried about with the Scalpel really? Pulse Boat? Big deal. Hundreds of Scalpels were designed by a hundreds of people 20+ years ago. It's old hat.


I'm not worried about people's designs getting criticized. But I also think that if you want to criticize something you should say your peace and be done with it. Furthermore, design threads should be about the design itself, not about the philosophy behind it. Once you discuss the philosophy, it becomes not a discussion of the design but of the designer, in other words a personal attack.
Akirapryde2006
03/24/16 07:12 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Listen, in this context/format there is no way to tell how person is responding in terms of emotions or stance. Any claim to the contrary unless you are sitting next to the person while they are posting would be futile.

I have read each post in this thread. Karagin's initial post wasn't defensive or filled with emotions as he had been accused of several times. The man has only posted what was being asked of him. Karagin might I point out, by constantly calling you out they way they are, you are being baited in to an emotional response.

Allow me to point out the baiting, Retry you actually called him out with the following statement.

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).



True or not, this statement had nothing to do with the OP. The statement was meant to inflame and draw on an emotional response via public ridicule. Then Donkey stepped in to the fray with advice that he himself doesn't fallow. You two don't get the right to call Karagin out for being emotional when you can't gauge his emotion and on top of that, you two called the man out for public ridicule and smite his views. This is not how a civil conversation works.

I want to have a civil conversation about Power Gaming and the flake that members get for posting their designs here.

I don't pull my punches, and I call things for what they are. I am not even afraid of calling out my own mistakes. But in this, something has to give. While yes Karagin does post his views of designs (rather passionately or in malice), it is no less than what has been done to my own designs by Donkey. In fact, for reference here let me show you.


Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

When you post one of your illegal ship designs will you please say so in the title so people that don't want to look at an illegal ship designs will know to pass on clicking on it.



This post was made to one of my own designs regarding how I handle crew quarters and in clear ignorance/defiant of the note I placed at the top of my design asking for such posts to not happen.

This is the problem. Both sides are guilty of the same thing that they accuse the other of doing. This is what the OP is meant to address.

How to handle designs that are seen as Power Gaming or perceived to be in violation of the rules.

The current method of public ridicule is counter productive and in fact destructive to the committee as a whole.

When I look at ATN designs, I get a bit a laugh out of them. The Scalpel looked a lot like a fighter that was designed by a player in our group for use with her elite pilot. It was a costume fighter that took ten times as much to support, repair and maintain. A cost that our group was willing to pay because her pilot could clear the skies like no body's business even before she got that fighter (If Memories services, she used a stock Hell Cat in the beginning till she got her costume fighter).

I commend your (Akalabeth) on your statement

Quote:
Akalabeth:
I'm not worried about people's designs getting criticized. But I also think that if you want to criticize something you should say your peace and be done with it. Furthermore, design threads should be about the design itself, not about the philosophy behind it. Once you discuss the philosophy, it becomes not a discussion of the design but of the designer, in other words a personal attack.



However, having a conversation about the philosophy behind a design doesn't and shouldn't lead to personal attacks.

In fact knowing the how's and why's a craft was designed the way it was could lead to better understanding of why the designer took the steps that he/she did. It could also lead posters like Retry and Karagin to helping the designer to reach their desired goals without the air of power gaming.

No one is saying that neither Retry or Karagin don't have experience in designs. Or that their voice shouldn't be heard. What is being said for everyone, that if you have a history with a poster (take Donkey and I and aforementioned post above) there is little hope that your comments will be received. Simple take the higher road and re-frame from submitting your opinion on the design.

If you do submit your opinion and its not taken kindly, respect the fact that it is not your design or group and do the honorable thing by bowing out of the conversation. After all, everyone here has admitted that the end result is to have fun with the game. And I am sure that no one, NO ONE enjoys personal attacks or snide little comments about their design.

Akira
ghostrider
03/24/16 07:50 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Stop bringing logic and facts into a rant, damn it.

We want nothing more then a reason to rip into someone's concepts and philosophies.
Now with that being said...

Power gaming is something that people need to decide if they want it done or not. The whole concept of a war game is the ultimate machine. The skills is irrelavant, since no one wants to play Phelan Ward, or Natasha Kerensky, but the character they worked hard to come up with. I hate some of the ways people deal with the rules and designs and say it, but in the end, they will do as they will do. I will be vocal about it not being right, but in the end, that is how I feel. As much as I have the right to say it is not right, they do have the right to say it is.

This did start out civil and it needs to return to that. But the hardest thing to do is define WHY something is good/bad like this. Each group has it's own versions and even using house rules could be considered it's own version of a power game.

I think some canon things are screwed up, and need change. Does that mean I am a power gamer if I think tank crits need to decrease or they be allowed to use the same things mechs do?
For some, that is a definite yes. To me, I don't see it that way.

I say things annoy me, but in the end, only those playing with said people can say wither they like it or not.
Sadly, the personal swipes and such only cause it to get worse.

The developers changed a few things over the revisions. I would consider a power gamer as having the natural apptitude in gunnery and the stealth skill for every character they have. Machines can be overpowered, and a few holes need to be closed, but frankly, until they do, it is opinion verse opinion. And that leads to emotional responses.

One last thing for now. If it is a power gaming thing, why do you need variety? Just use the best unit for all involved. Technically save time and money if you only need parts for one type of unit. Mass production would drop the costs and save space as you don't need 3 different large lasers on your ship if you only use pulse.
Akirapryde2006
03/24/16 07:56 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Stop bringing logic and facts into a rant, damn it.

We want nothing more then a reason to rip into someone's concepts and philosophies.



And this is why I love posting back and fourth with you Ghost, you make me laugh....
Retry
03/24/16 08:02 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
True or not, this statement had nothing to do with the OP. The statement was meant to inflame and draw on an emotional response via public ridicule.



Nope. It's a prod at his well-known frequency of creating designs that purposely have considerable flaws in the name of character, as well as his tendency to criticize his tendency to criticize any design that doesn't appear to have any obvious or significant flaw for the lack of "character", including situations where the Battlemech doesn't actually have a close in-universe equivalent. (Distinctiveness is the very definition of Character.)

I wouldn't interprete anyone making a jab out of my fascination with BT Pulse Lasers or stealth technology as being malicious or intended to inflame. IIRC You're rather new here so I bet you've missed most of the specific events that is being referred to.

If he didn't get it and took it as an attack, that's unfortunate.
Karagin
03/24/16 08:17 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So what happen to keeping this civil?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
03/24/16 08:26 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

So what happen to keeping this civil?



Nothing. This conversation has remained remarkably civil.
Karagin
03/24/16 08:28 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wow, so you cherry pick and ignore the other comments refuting things and for the record the asking of shelving the egos was to keep this on topic, but clearly two of you want to continue acting like it is the end of the world since your designs and such catch flak and are not just taken as perfect. There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions as fact...

I agree with Ghostrider, if you want to power game then hey do so, but don't expect all of us to be on board with it, and if you don't want to power game then hey great.

Clearly I hit a nerve for some by challenging their designs and way of playing. I find it rather odd that they are so wrapped up over this.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/24/16 08:49 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So since some keep dodging the issues and launching flame attacks, so the issue is does the way some design their mechs etc...reflect in how they play the game?

I think it does, clearly we have seen designs that are built to be close to end all of mechs etc...and again used against canon units, they indeed wipe out those units. And while I am accused of being flawed or wrong for saying you should have character in the mechs etc...in that something isn't totally perfect, it does seem that is not straying to far from the norm of the game setting.

So do the designs influence how folks play the game?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
03/24/16 10:09 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Clearly I hit a nerve for some by challenging their designs and way of playing. I find it rather odd that they are so wrapped up over this.



Well, someone's nerve has been hit.

Let it rest m8, stay on topic.

Quote:
So do the designs influence how folks play the game?



Would facing a Demolisher require a different tactic than an Archer?

Yes. Designs influence how folks play the game. That's the thing: They should.

The point of different designs is not to build 50 versions of the Scorpion tank that vary in name only, and maybe with an extra half ton of armor replaced with a machine gun.

Battletech's been in a bit of a rut. Everything's been done by the book mechs and tanks, and the book mechs end up to be rather similar to each other in terms of performance. E.G. the classic Vindicator is basically a heavier Panther with aesthetic differences and a modified secondary armament, and they can be dealt with similarly.

Additional armor types such as Reactive and Reflective, as well as certain weapons and equipment can break the rut and add designs that have never been done before, something actually substantially different from everything else. Unfortunately, book designs rarely use the advanced stuff, and when they do so they often end up overly flawed. (Raven II, Catapult II) The vast majority of options and opportunities for these new technologies, therefore, have to be player-utilized and not relied on the book designs.

Since canonical designs have failed to make effective use of new technologies, the fact that some members of the playerbase have done so does not constitute a powergaming crisis.
ghostrider
03/25/16 12:02 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I do not see why you would design something that is so overpowering if you did not play that way. I would say it goes hand in hand.
I have had times when I wanted to walk across a game, no matter what it was. But that was a once in a great while thing. I don't play every game with that intention.

For battle tech, tactics is supposed to be the main thing, not some unit that can't die. Why not bring in units from another game and use them. Mega damage for robotech and particle beam canons that do 50-75 points of damage a shot with 2k range should be enough.
But that is getting extreme.

Saying making a mech with a flaw in it, is the same as saying an over powered mech is not good. When the game first came out, I got the feeling mechs were supposed to be so rare, that a company in a single battle was extremely rare. So each mech was designed to handle all situations. Most had mgs for infantry, while only a few of the light mechs had ranges past 9. They seemed to start getting specific with things like the awesome, and such.
Once people caught on to the tricks of countering some of the mechs, I think that is where it started to go wrong. Lrms and speed seemed to be the best ways to take out things, with mls being the standard non ranged weapon for all. It was natural to advance those as they worked.
When I first started, medium mechs were crap. No real heavy weapons, yet tended to be slower then the lights so they were comprimise units. The concept of sitting in woods and not running all over the place seemed to be the best way to play the game. It might have been the people I played with, but that was the feel of the game.

Then people started using the speed making shots that much harder, but a simple spider wasn't too much of a threat. Charges were not a good idea, as they tended to die running up to the heavier mech.
The running of mirror matches with locust seemed to last longer then the heavy and assaults because people ran away if they lost init, while in the big units, you couldn't do that. Hell even a single medium laser hit would ot take out a limb or go interenal like a ppc or large cannon would on the heavier mechs.
The phoenix hawk was so unusual since it was the longest range weapon on a mech under 50 tons at the time. Then the panther came out. Then the valkyrie. Yes the urban mech had the ac 10, but the speed didn't allow much to be done with it like the others.
The idea the game is in a rut does bring up the point of balance. Ranges are kept to certain ranges and it seems some combinations are too much, yet without changing them around, there is no way to keep the balance. It may well take some major changes to stop the rut and restore balance.
This seems to promote the specialized mechs so there is no real way to counter them. Logically, all units should come to the 'power' units, and should have reached there by now. The problem I can see with this is the specialty mechs don't have the highly exploitable flaws, and in some cases can not be countered.
I don't know why I went this direction, but I do see it as part of the issue.
Justification of making the 'munchy' units seems to be a major step in trying to sort this out.
Karagin
03/25/16 12:37 AM
172.98.86.158

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Saying that just because the canon units don't use the best of best is not a good logical point to justify your designs as having to always use the stuff. That level of thinking is what I was driving at for power gaming, the need to win at all cost by using the loop holes and the best the games offers no matter if it runs rough shot over just about everything else in the game to include player made it items.

When folks offer up home made weapons tech, everyone is quick to point the issues of balance and power and compare it to canon weapons etc...so why get upset when the home designs are compared to the canon mechs?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
03/25/16 01:25 AM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Saying that just because the canon units don't use the best of best is not a good logical point to justify your designs as having to always use the stuff. That level of thinking is what I was driving at for power gaming, the need to win at all cost by using the loop holes and the best the games offers no matter if it runs rough shot over just about everything else in the game to include player made it items.



Some new canons do, they just usually don't use it well. Niches that would otherwise be created simply aren't filled by the new canons.

"Always" is a vast exaggeration. Very few people "always" top out everything with experimental level technology. I can't speak for everyone else, but I've made plenty of standard and introductory tech IS level vehicles and have posted them on this forum. They usually aren't particularly interesting because there is already a huge glut of IS low-tech vehicles, and they rarely get any more than two comments here on Sarna.

Quote:
When folks offer up home made weapons tech, everyone is quick to point the issues of balance and power and compare it to canon weapons etc...so why get upset when the home designs are compared to the canon mechs?



A home-brew mech must work within the current design rules and functions of the game. If you make a home-brew design, it's entirely possible for that mech to be designed, exist, and function in the BTU. You can't expand its capabilities outside what the rules allow and are inherently limited. A canon BT mech is rendered obsolete by a design that is more advanced or applies its tonnage better? Well, it's not a big deal since other canon BT mechs frequently do that as well.

A home-brew weapon or equipment technology adds another piece of equipment and another rule how it behaves relative to everything else. You're effectively rewriting the rulebook and creating dozens of potential new designs that could effectively utilize the technology, from field guns to starships, and they're inherently more vulnerable to considerably changing the dynamics of Battletech. BT weapons *do* make other weapons obsolete sometimes, but that's never the original intention.

Home mechs create a new unit within the rules. Home weapons re-write the rules.
ghostrider
03/25/16 02:18 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will point out that the low tech units don't normally get much of a response due to the fact there isn't much you can really say about most of them. Ac 5/mg combo. Yeah. This one has a 6/9 move instead of 5/8.
Another slow lrm boat. The most wow that shows up is an ice with energy weapons for vehicles.
Is it right? Probably not.

Now with the home weapons, there is questions people try to find answers to, and though they will not be canon, saying it does not belong on a forums site that has people with ideas or even knowledge of how to make them better, and allow them to get close to canon.
This is close to the very issue of calling power gaming bad. Shooting it down because you don't like it, seems very much the same thing you are suggesting about Karagin. I will grant you the backing of rules suggesting the home made stuff has less solid a foundation then the overpowered but within the rules, stuff.
Everyone wants positive input on their designs, but for the most part there will be questions on why this or that. As some get a bit defensive when certain points are brought up on their designs, or even style of play, it seems that is reversed when someone does something that isn't liked.

But this is moving from the perceived power gaming issue.

Now the issue of mixed tech. I think this is a very good show of the power gaming. The rules do not say you can not do it, but frankly, you want to say it isn't in the rules, well the canon sources have avoided most mixed tech ideas. Clans are not likely to use IS tech in their equipment, and the reasons of not being able to support it, the IS is not likely to use clan tech as a standard. The idea that a small organization outside of the clans or major houses could research and build such tech is, I want to say impossible, but will have to stick with improbable. And then get the new tech as soon as it comes out?
It was a bit annoying that the developers allowed house specific tech to be used by all. The c3 system was kurita only. Stealth armor was Liao only. The clans trial of possession would allow them to use the same tech, but the IS is highly unlikely to do so. And even then, getting it set up for local production would be a long process as well. But again I digress.

One last thought. In D&D, a wizard can sometimes get a wish spell. Does that mean since it is legal, I can wish everything but myself dead and gain the experience for it? I mean without the game master putting me in my own little world that I am alone in.
Is it right?
Karagin
03/25/16 06:46 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They don't have to use it well, not everything needs to be min/max. You do not always get everything in one basket, which is the issue many of the designs that folks post have. There is no compromise between having the cool stuff and not.

Player made designs changing things far more then you seem to understand Retry, if everyone fields nothing but the best of the game, then no one will ever want to use book mechs in any scenario or tournament, so yes the home made designs do change the rules, and home made or player made weapons don't rewrite the rules, they normally add to them, what rewrites the rules is when someone wants something changed and comes up with new rules like how Death From Above happens or how LAMs do their thing or how you have extra to hit modifiers for something.

The issues with BOTH player made designs and weapons or rules is balance, and really that is the clear issue here with power gamers, balance, same for the min/max, if there is no balance then that favors the side who has to win at all cost since it that group who is always using the min/max machines. I have yet to see a home rule or home weapon unbalance the game as much as the power gamers do. Mainly since the home made weapons or rule are oddity to a limited group of people where as the opposite is not true for power gamers since they are found in just about every group and since the popularity of the Internet that we have now all over the internet.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
03/25/16 10:17 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How a group plays makes a whole lot of difference in what kind of designs, weapons and house rules they employ. Understanding this is vital to being able to understand the design concept.

I don't think that this applies to all designs, but I am sure that this applies to a lot of them and even Characters which could be seen as powergaming.

Here take me for example.

One of my first characters in the Mechwarrior Universe was built rather strangely because of my ignorance to the system and used House Rules which had been created by our Narrator (and my Mentor to the game)

I loved the idea of creating a Rommel style of character. One who was a great leader of soldiers and a strong fighter at the same time. I gave my Build, Reflex, Learn and Charisma all Sixes. I gave my intuition three (this was a priority four). I picked up 3 Advantages (which I took Natural Aptitude in Tactics, Strategy, priority three). I picked up 16 points (priority two) for my skills.

The home rule allowed me to pick up to three randomly generated disadvantages for equal number of points worth of advantages. I picked up two and bought Natural Aptitude in Leadership as well.

I had no idea what my disadvantages were going to be as those were randomly rolled by the group for the last thing to my character sheet. I got Communications and Stealth. Which meant I had to treat the skills as untrained (3d6 take the lowest) if I had them, or 4d6 take the lowest if I didn't.

While some will see this as powergaming, I would like to point out that sure my character was a great strategist, Even on the game world, that only went so far. My blunder was with my intuition. It remained at three till the last weeks of playing the character. I finally managed to get it up to level 4.

But you see, this wasn't a short run game. There were many times where stealth came in to the game and once where I had to send a message via a HPG. Everyone was counting on me to get the message sent and I failed the roll twice will I had to edge it and on roll four I finally got the message out.

If you have a narrator that knows the house rules and tells a complete story, powergaming evaporates as the story progresses. Sure my character was a great leader and earned the nickname the Chess Master, But within the story, it was more often left to the role playing of the game that got us through the day.

Sure these designs might be power gaming. Take the Eclipse for instances. Sure the design in so very powerful and so very intimidating. Kind of like the Japanese Battleship Yamato or the German pocket Battleship Bismarck. However both of these highly expensive warships were sunk. What will the Clan that builds the Eclipse do if they loss this massive ultra expensive warship to a small swarm of defending fighters and a massive wave of nuclear tipped missiles. All it takes is a wave of LRMs mixed in with the nukes and you have a shinning example of why large ships or terror don't last long.

In a short battle where the results don't matter, sure no big deal. But in a story line campaign, the loss of the Eclipse and the level of resources required to build it could unseat a Clan Khan and end his leadership.

See power gaming only works in pitch battles were the results have no baring on the next battle. Look at the Scalpel. Sure does look all powerful. However it has a weakness. All laser weapons means that after the first battle it is in, the losing forces will know its weakness and go after the craft with ER PPC's and LRMs. by staying out of range of the fighter with medium and light fighters the enemy can pick away at the Scalpel to death. Again a large amount of resources for a fighter that could easily be out matched by smaller lighter craft. After looking at, even a few Inner Sphere fighters could take the Scalpel down once the weakness of the craft is exposed.

In long campaigns, it really doesn't matter how powerful the craft is. It will always fall down to the player, and his/her ability to adapt and over come the obstacles placed before them within the adventure.

Take my character above. You would think he was a power gaming kind of character. I built him to be a master tactician and then some. I just got my very first Atlas (took every last of my C-Bills) and was about to battle for the number one rank on Solaris. Right when I had my target in my sights and I was about to fire the AC-20 for the first time, BOOM! I never saw the bomb hidden in my AC-20 even though we searched it. The death of my Atlas opened up a whole new chapter in our game.

Akira
ghostrider
03/25/16 01:12 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now to add to your example, akira. does all your characters max on the gunnery skills and leave everything else crap?
Their characters, once they figure out the creation system look like clones. Something like land administration would never be used.

Now the idea of having a games master does remove some aspects of the game. And they can make is so other skills come in effect. Sensor operator is one of those skills all machine operators should have, but is useless without a games master. No real rules dealing with it outside the role playing game.

And where eventually people figure out ways around the munchy units, the fact the very next one from that player tends to refine it just a little more.
You example with dealing with the fighter has a minor issue with it. Unless you are doing loops as shoot, run, repeat, staying out of the range of the fighter is almost impossible. But you did remind me of why some different units are needed. Having a lighter fighter, or just one with a bigger engine for the speed to remove those little strafers is needed. Granted, the ability to hit at the long ranges of the lrms/erppc/and what ever is a problem. Unless you have elites, 10's are difficult to do much with. And as pointed out, it would be 7's with the pulse/comp combo.

Now I would figure tactics would be better for battle tech, as strategy is for getting the forces to the site, verse dealing with the actual battle, tactics does, not having natural ability in gunner is the first step away from a power gamer.

Everyone wants every character they own to be the ultimate pilot. And make sure their machine does it for them.
But their is a point where it goes just that much too far.

The issue here is peoples ideas and opinions. I can say it is bad to do so, but in the end, the person needs to decide if they are going to far or not.
Akalabeth
03/25/16 06:16 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've been playing Battletech since the 90s, some 25 years off and off, and I've never had a problem with custom designs. Even when we were in a group with a power-gamer.

Though even when it was just myself and a friend, we tried to play battles in a campaign.

Nowadays we have one guy being the GM/Opfor and everyone else is a company or lance commander with their own persistent forces from one game to the next. Custom designs are possible so far as modifiying a canon design is possible, and we have had power gamers in the group, but dealing with that one power gamer was just a matter of knowing his weaknesses.

In his case, he was a bit of a coward and/or liked to pick on easy targets so it was easy to throw battlearmour at him and distract his 5000 BV mech while the rest of his friends had to deal with the bulk of the enemy force. And while his personal ride was often min-maxed, it was easy to put him into a situation for which his mech was ill-suited and so forth.

Power gaming isn't a problem of design it's a problem of player interaction. The way to deal with it is not to tell people to design their machines differently, it's through actual interaction with that individual at the table.

If someone is a problem player, learn to deal with it or stop playing with them. That's all there is to it.
Akirapryde2006
03/25/16 06:46 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Now to add to your example, akira. does all your characters max on the gunnery skills and leave everything else crap?

Their characters, once they figure out the creation system look like clones. Something like land administration would never be used.



LOL No No. Actually even my three skills that were my focus weren't maxed out. When my character was nearing the end of his career, his gunnery skill was level eight with a base of 0. But this was after over a year of gaming with this character.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now the idea of having a games master does remove some aspects of the game. And they can make is so other skills come in effect. Sensor operator is one of those skills all machine operators should have, but is useless without a games master. No real rules dealing with it outside the role playing game.



That is because most games are run more like Warhammer, between two players. The effects beyond that battle are meaningless. Where the pilots and soldiers are all generic and there is no story line behind the battle. There is nothing wrong with this style of gaming, but for me, this is not the Mechwarrior Universe. It is only in this format that power gamers actually get over on the rules via their designs.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now I would figure tactics would be better for battle tech, as strategy is for getting the forces to the site, verse dealing with the actual battle, tactics does, not having natural ability in gunner is the first step away from a power gamer.



You know, that is what everyone thought too. But having natural ability in strategy meant that we always had the initiative. Plus, my character was able to 'see' the battle unfold before it actually was. As a house rule, we could back up a turn or a risky move. Think of it like an edge for the map/miniature game.

Leadership allow our side to have the benefits of moral all the time. It took a while to build up to this point. But thanks to my advantages, once we were there the benefits gave us a huge advantage on the battlefield.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Everyone wants every character they own to be the ultimate pilot. And make sure their machine does it for them.
But their is a point where it goes just that much too far.

The issue here is peoples ideas and opinions. I can say it is bad to do so, but in the end, the person needs to decide if they are going to far or not.



Look, this is the problem with the methods of gaming this game. When you have a Narrator, the narrator can limit the effects of power gaming. When you are playing the board game with miniatures, power gamers can get over. I don't have an answer as to how to fix this problem. For me, I play Mechwarrior for the sake of the characters and the story.

When dealing with a story based game, there are more methods of how to control power gaming.

Just a quick question.

There are two types of gaming for Mechwarrior. Story based and miniatures. Where does everyone fall in on this. Are you:
A) Story Based Gamer only
B) Miniature only
C) Combination of the two

Now that you answered that. Please answer this. How out of control can Power Gaming get?

For disclosure, I would fit in to the combination group. With a strong Narrator at the helm of the game, Power Gamers really don't get a chance to upset the balance of the game because their skill focus often leads to weak characters everywhere else. Sure with their gunnery and piloting maxed out, they are the best in their mechs. But our games take place out of mechs as much as in mechs. The player will tend to drop out of the game or change the character so not to be a largely weak character while other balanced characters are taking the story focus.
Retry
03/25/16 06:53 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Player made designs changing things far more then you seem to understand Retry, if everyone fields nothing but the best of the game, then no one will ever want to use book mechs in any scenario or tournament, so yes the home made designs do change the rules, and home made or player made weapons don't rewrite the rules, they normally add to them, what rewrites the rules is when someone wants something changed and comes up with new rules like how Death From Above happens or how LAMs do their thing or how you have extra to hit modifiers for something.



Scenarios imply limitations and are often based upon a canonical battle. In a Scenario, specific book mechs would be the only vehicles being used anyways.

In the case of tournaments, that depends entirely on the rules of the tournament. Are customs allowed in the tournament? Is clan equipment allowed? What technology level is the tournament restricted to? Each of these should factor into what the player chooses to bring into the tournament.

If the tournament is a no-holds-barred 1v1, and someone voluntarily picks to field a Scorpion for the tournament, good for him. If he gets pushed into a fight with a Hellstar during the tournament, tough luck, he knew (or should have known) what he was getting into. In fact, it's so well made that no player-built min-max machine can get much better than the Hellstar.

Speaking of the Hellstar, it looks exactly like what said power gamers would make. It has maximum speed for its chassis, maximum armor, and a very deadly armament that can be fired forever because of its heat It's also a canon mech that would wipe the floors with 90% of the other canon mechs, including other Clan mechs. It seems to hit everything that would qualify it as a power-gaming weapon, except it's actually canon. Do we restrict its use in canon matches and tournaments as well, then?

If the players want to stay close to official BT lore they can host a game with the rules, regulations and restrictions required to keep the match that way. If the players want to play a high-tech game with all the bells and whistles available, they should be able to do so without having to worry about "balancing" against older, highly flawed and very obsolete military equipment just because someone who chooses them won't be able to compete well, despite the explicit nature of the match they chose to play.

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

There'd be a problem if a player tried to defy the rules and put something into a match that simply won't be allowed by the group. That's an issue, but it's entirely separate from the usual "power gaming" discussion.
Karagin
03/25/16 07:54 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Retry the Hellstar is one mech, and I agree it does meet the level of power gaming that we are talking about, if someone says hey let's not use that mech and here is the reason why, then the other player either agree or they don't and the group of players figure it out.

One mech though, and yet how many on here alone are over the top on everything? How many times do we see some post a design that is clearly a min/max machine that is built for one reason to win?

Even the vaunted Gausszilla mech is slow and can be beat, seen that happen and it fell to a Warhammer. I have a copy of one of the mechs that I am speaking of, I will post it and you can tell me if you would allow it or not in your game or with your group.

Now I didn't say anyone was defying the rules, again please don't add words to what I am saying, I said that home made rules and weapons are normally NOT an issue since most folks try for balance and if there are none the issue is isolated to that single group of players and overall doesn't cause the rest of us issues. BUT power gamers are not a single isolated thing.

Yes sure if folks are playing a campaign or official scenario then yes limits can be imposed, but not everyone is going to have the time to set up a scenario and power gamers normally will not play in those settings since they know their wonder mechs will not be there. The majority of games are lance on lance or a couple of mechs vs another couple of mechs. There is a vast difference between a Hunchback fighting a Stinger and you keep trying to justifty power gaming by saying the same can be done with book mechs and that is not true, the book mechs are set in stone, yes you can use the variants but again those are known things. A player made mech has no such limit, you can build what ever you want as long as you don't break the rules, but again the rules have loop holes. An example or i.e. the pulse/targ combo.

Folks who power game are not going to be the ones to want to play in a scenario setting, you can see many of them struggle when they play at conventions and don't have their own home made designs. So no home tech and weapons are not going to cause balance issues, where as the power gamer designs will.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/25/16 08:01 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How out of control? Let's see since they won't play in a scenario since that limits them, then their normal MO is to have their home design with max armor, max heat sinks so they can alpha strike every turn, then they have to have the best pilot going for them no more the a 2 gunnery and 2 pilot and if they can get away with it then their pilots would be in elite warriors with modifers to the to hit roll resulting in all you need to roll is a two or less and even then they haven't broken the rules since the game allows this. Then the mech would be at top of the speed scale for the weight class. Next to no ammo weapons, and then this same mech would have it's clones that are part of the lance if they is the force they are field.

Meanwhile you have the other players running with average to decent mechs that had some thought put into them, that are built to work together as part of a lance etc...

And since everyone chose to ignore the point I brought up a few comments back, let's pick the some of the designs from here mech wise to start with, picking what each of us feels is a power gamer mech and then see what folks say.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
csadn
03/25/16 08:32 PM
50.53.22.4

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Opinions follow -- read at risk :

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)?



The definition I've always used is "win no matter what -- never mind there's no 'prize' for winning". It's a means of validating one's self, usually at the expense of others -- and it's that second part which causes the social problems (the phrase "bad winner" pops to mind -- the sort of person for whom winning is always a result of his own greatness, whilst losing is blamed on external forces like "unlucky dice rolls").

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

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



In the Platonic-ideal world, yes -- but realize: In Reality, no successful military unit has *ever* come from a Government Specification; the historically-great designs have without exception come from geniuses operating independently from Gov't Control, producing products so going-away superior that Gov't Specifications have to be written *around* them (for examples: the P-51 Mustang, the F6F Hellcat, the Spitfire, and the Mosquito from WW2). The reality is: Most military vehicles are designed by committees, to specifications which are no longer relevant (if they ever were); then one adds in the inevitable politicking and contract-grabbing, leading to units where system are installed solely to give some region representation (ISTR a FedCom design which was designed so that one part came from FS, another from LC, a third from the Sarna March, yet another from St. Ives....)

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

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



Not necessarily. For ex.: My "baby", the original _Shadow Hawk_ has an AC, a LRM, a SRM, and a ML; it's a good "all-around" 'mech design; but if it goes against a "9-hex wonder" at close range, it gets clobbered; and the same if it tries a long-range duel against a bombardment 'Mech. That said, if it can play to the foe's *weaknesses*, it's a "better" design. I took out an _Atlas_ with a SH once, purely by moving fast (the best armor is a +3 movement mod), staying at 10+ hexes (where the _Atlas_ has *one* weapon which can hit), and slowly pecking the *&^%$#!er to death. (Being able to get behind him was a plus -- he had much less firepower aft.)

I have modified SHs (of which more later) which are designed for various types of combat -- short-range specials; long-range fire-support; LRRP energy-weapon specials. Each has its fortes, and its foibles; but each is designed to perform its assigned role as best it can. Misusing one will get it killed; using it "properly" will win games.

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

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



Well, one Nasty Idea which springs to mind: Always have a "scenario" in place -- a task which must be accomplished to "win". For ex.: Some of the old unit sourcebooks have scenarios where players can select from a list of Missions, which selection is unknown to the opponent; thus the player can win without necessarily having to "play smash" with his foe. (See "Fog Of War" from _Tales of the Black Widow Company_ for an example.)

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

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?



Not really -- tho' I could see where eventually games where everyone gets the giblets blasted off them in three turns gets a little dull and predictable, leading to a "return" to stock designs; a sort of Darwinian evolution of the game, as the unsuccessful game dies out in favor of a more-successful version....

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

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?



See #1 -- the intent is "win no matter what"; the method is irrelevant.

For my part: I play Outworlds Alliance. For OA, the overarching theme of 'Mech design is "BattleMechs Are Expensive -- and Pilots are Even Worse". To that end, then: 'Mech designs have fewer weapons, more HSs, and are designed to produce the maximum firepower *without killing the pilot or blowing up the 'Mech*; this leads to my designs in many cases having weaker absolute firepower, but far-better "alpha strike" capability. (For ex.: I have an _Enforcer_ mod with 2x LL and 20 HS; it can full-jump and fire both LLs every turn all day -- with no ammo issues, I can pogo around to my heart's content, while my foe may have to watch his heat scale, and get annoyed that he's always looking at high-end targeting modifiers.) When the special rules for units came about, I created one for my units which continued the "preserve the 'mech and pilot" theme -- because I wanted to stay with the theme I'd created.

(For the record: 1) If a 'mech has enough heat-dispersion to fire all its weapons and move at its highest-heat method without overheating, reduce all Avoid numbers on the Heat Scale, and Consciousness numbers, by 1. 2) If the 'Mech has a HS in the Head, or if #1 applies but the 'mech cannot have a HS in the head due to design rules and instead leaves the critical space unused, reduce all Consciousness numbers by 1 in addition to #1.

#2 examples: If the unit has 11 or fewer HS, and has an engine large enough that 11 HS are included with the engine, it may leave the unoccupied Head critical empty, and claim the bonus. If the unit mounts DHS, which cannot be fitted into the single Head critical, it may leave the Head critical unoccupied and claim the bonus. If it places an ES or FF or other "roll again" critical in the Head slot, it may not claim the bonus, as the slot is occupied.)
CF

Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 87 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: 27267


Contact Admins Sarna.net