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!!!
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
Akirapryde2006
03/25/16 08:34 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:
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, I didn't ignore your suggestion.

I just don't feel comfortable pointing fingers the design of someone else.

But I know this suggestion means a lot to you, and I know the importance of making a point.

To help you without compromising my own feelings on picking on another person's design allow me to do this.

Here are my picks.

My Aegis II Class Cruiser (you will have to scroll to the last post to see the current version)

My own Thomas Rein Class Destroyer (Again scroll to the last post for the current version)

Don't worry about being critical, both designs are currently going through revision so I can bring them more in line with current rule sets. Karagin (or anyone else), be as critical as you want. I put myself on the chopping block so that Karagin can make his point knowing how some feel about how I handle crew quarters.

All I ask, is that everyone takes a role in this conversation.

Akira
Retry
03/25/16 09:08 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
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.



You can do the same thing with a home-brew. Problem solved.

Quote:
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?



Not that many, actually. The ones that are simply take most of the attention. Even ATN doesn't build everything as a Death Star, e.g. the Patriot mech and the Boomstick hovercraft.

Quote:
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.



Sure. Why wouldn't we? It's basically a modified Rifleman IIC.

Quote:
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.



If you're doing a quick match that's lance v lance or mech v mech you can still apply limits if your group will agree. If they don't agree you'll either have to join them or find another group.

It shouldn't matter whether or not you get destroyed by a canon mech created a decade ago or a near identical home-brew developed today.

Quote:
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...



More information is necessary. What tool is being used to balance, if any? (E.G. BV, Tonnage, C-Bills) Are the players aware of the parameters beforehand like the pilot limit or the technology level? Was the map size or type specified before the match began? Did they have an opportunity before the match to make or pick whatever they wanted to use?

If they very well knew the technology limit and still chose to field low tech, low efficiency mechs, then they played the pre-game poorly and suffered the consequences during the actual match.

In a no-holds-barred match, creating vehicle designs and selecting them is part of the fun. There are plenty of options available if you don't want customs, or at least the best-of-the-best ones, and failure to excercise them does not constitute some sort of power-gaming cataclysm.
Karagin
03/25/16 09:24 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So what you are saying Retry is that you favor and would allow power gaming and their style of play with in your group and would use the same levels of play that they use?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
03/25/16 09:39 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

So what you are saying Retry is that you favor and would allow power gaming and their style of play with in your group and would use the same levels of play that they use?



If we're doing a match without tech restrictions, then it means without tech restrictions. Every player competes with each other not just tactically but design-wise as well.

If we want, we do scenarios restricted to IS tech, or scenarios restricted to canon vehicles, or scenarios restricted to a basic tech level (No XLE, no fancy ER or pulse lasers, etc.). It really just depends on what we feel like doing.


Edited by Retry (03/25/16 09:39 PM)
ghostrider
03/25/16 09:56 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How bad can power gaming get?

In battle tech terms, using a warship to destroy one infantry person on a planet.

The latest posts has me realizing something about the designs as well.
Does a power gaming have anything on the mech that might kill the pilot besides a fusion explosion?
Do they retreat from a battle to save the unit?
It seems the game pushes towards power gaming in some instances.

And for karagin, the original awesome was a power mech when it came out with the exception of speed. I think that is part of why the lighter engines came out.
Not the idea of a power mech might also come from massed weapons of the same type. Yet the game promotes that style of thinking, as bracket firing seems a waste. Use lrms past 7 hexes, and lasers under, but most would fire both when ever they have the chance.
One on one seems to promote the power gaming like others have mentioned. As part of a team or scenario, it cuts back on what can be done.

The ac 20 and now the gauss rifle seems to set up power mechs, All or nothing style of play. For the lighter mechs, the ac 20 is almost an instant kill weapon. Gauss rifle isn't as bad, but has the range to cause the same effect with 2 hits. The erppc can be added and being an energy weapon, it will be fired more often then the ammo carriers.

So from what it looks like, power gaming seems to stem from a lack of anything other then arena style play. Kill or be killed.
Karagin
03/25/16 10:32 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ghostrider I think you summed it up, the kill or be killed arena style play, that is NOT Battletech, tactical thinking and use of your lance as team is Battletech, hence why they came out with Solaris 7 game and rule set.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
03/25/16 10:36 PM
172.56.27.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

So from what it looks like, power gaming seems to stem from a lack of anything other then arena style play. Kill or be killed.



I would have to agree.

The single issue is in Arena (event style) gaming not from a role playing point of view.

Karagin, Retry is right. In Arena (event style) gaming, the rules are created ahead of time. Such as no holds barred means just that. Sure it's a crapy way to play, the whole win at all costs mentality. But these players tend to earn a reputation for themselves as such.

I understand what you are saying and you have every right to speak your peace. But once you said it, drop it. These players will not change the way they play off of what you say. Choose your battles wisely. Because you can have better influence over players willing to listen. Earning a reputation for yourself as being a jerk or a rule thumper (not saying you are, just saying) only takes away from the knowledge and experience you can offer someone who is willing to listen.

Retry, you have to understand that Karagin is passionate about the game he loves. Are you less? Of course you are not. You both have the best interest of the game in mind. While you only differ in gaming styles.

What ever bitterness might between you two in the pass, is really the past. And I could care less about this history. What I care about is the future of the game that we all love and enjoy.
Karagin
03/25/16 10:40 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Fair enough Akira
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/25/16 10:41 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And for the record Korean cell phones and the internet are not a good combo...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
03/25/16 11:47 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Ghostrider I think you summed it up, the kill or be killed arena style play, that is NOT Battletech, tactical thinking and use of your lance as team is Battletech, hence why they came out with Solaris 7 game and rule set.



So a clan Trial of Position is not Battletech?
A clan Trial of Bloodright is not Battletech?

Sorry to break it to you. But it IS.
Further from an objective point of view, the level of detail in the battletech game system makes 1-on-1 duels interesting, making it well suited for 1-on-1 arena style combat.
Karagin
03/26/16 12:26 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The two things you talk about are single combat similar to Arena style fighting so Akalabeth I hate to break it to you but THEY are the same as playing Solaris 7 style games.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
03/26/16 12:32 AM
216.53.168.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Quote:
Karagin writes:

Ghostrider I think you summed it up, the kill or be killed arena style play, that is NOT Battletech, tactical thinking and use of your lance as team is Battletech, hence why they came out with Solaris 7 game and rule set.



So a clan Trial of Position is not Battletech?
A clan Trial of Bloodright is not Battletech?

Sorry to break it to you. But it IS.
Further from an objective point of view, the level of detail in the battletech game system makes 1-on-1 duels interesting, making it well suited for 1-on-1 arena style combat.



You are taking what he is saying out of context.

There is more to the game than the mech or other weapon system. There is a robust story behind the battles (regardless of where it takes place).

Take Phelan Kelly (Ward) and his story. In your own statement he too took part in both trials. But these battles did not solely define him as a leader/pilot.

This is what Karagin is talking about. When you have a design that is over the top and you bend the rules to the point of breaking, you are robbing the story from the pilot and forcing the story to be about this one battle. And that is not what Battletech is about.

Even some of the greatest single battles, like the Battle of Tukayyid, there was much more to what happened. There was a series of battles that created the over all campaign of Tukayyid not to mention the story that actur made this battle possible.

Akira
ghostrider
03/26/16 01:16 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Clan trials focus on the better warrior, not the better machine. Hell, sometimes there is no machines in the fight.
But then that is story line, not actual game play.
You would not advance in a clan if you mech is the only reason you are successful. If I know right, the trial of position is in a clan accepted unit, not one of your choosing. Even configuring omnis is limited. But then that also depends on those playing.
You are there to defeat the units, not necessarily kill the opponents.

Akal, you seem to focus on dueling more then the rest of the game. That is fine. Try fighting mirror matches as that should be how the story proceeds. Sooner or later someone else in the same mech will rise up to challenge you. Even in the fields sooner or later others will use the same unit. As it is suggested, the most efficient machine will prevail and be produced.


The last novels I read were in the dark ages, and the idea of honorable battles was still part of the clan thoughts, though not as well practiced at that point. You do not take a direwolf in battle with even a fire moth in a trial of position.
Now the trial of bloodright is a blood bath, yet there are limits to it as well.
And to restate it, not all of them are augmented. There are times when an elemental trooper will win the chose of combat and choose hand to hand.
If you actually play this way, you can see the unit of choice means nothing. Face an aerofighter with your mech.
The point with the clans is you are limited on what you can bring and do. If you insist on a machine that is so overpowering, they may revoke your right to even be there.

But I do understand there are times when one on one is what it comes down to. If you need the overpowered units to win, then the idea of tactics is tossed out the window.

Thought about this after the post, but the clans would NEVER use tsm. Physical combat is something the are repulsed by, so that limits them a little further.


Edited by ghostrider (03/26/16 01:19 AM)
Akirapryde2006
03/26/16 01:50 AM
172.56.5.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Karagin can correct me if I am wrong. But that seems like his point.

Ubber mechs, fighters ect, ext.. take away from the game by denying the effort of the pilot.

Take my character, he didn't start out strong but in the end he was a remarkable leader and strategist. His skills were raised by hard work and his mech was a warhammer IIC (Captured from Tukayyid). Yes, a stock mechanism from the book.

I worked really hard to build him up to where he was at the time of his death.

So you don't play the story line version of the game. That a fine, and no one says it's wrong. What we are saying is when you power game, you are robbing the game of one of its greatest features, the story.

And don't get me wrong, it's okay to toss down the map and take a mech to the extreme. But also think about the other side of the game as well.

Akira
Akalabeth
03/26/16 04:03 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

The two things you talk about are single combat similar to Arena style fighting so Akalabeth I hate to break it to you but THEY are the same as playing Solaris 7 style games.



Era Report 3052 - Battletech Book. Rules for Trial of Position. publication date 2010

Solaris 7 - a TWENTY FIVE year old, outdated, archaic, unsupported rules variant that almost no one plays anymore.

1 on 1 duels are battletech.
Mechs are moved one at a time. Purchased one at a time.

Duels don't belong to a different system. They're a subset of Battletech. And in terms of fluff they encompass some of the most iconic moments in battletech fiction.

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

You are taking what he is saying out of context.. . .

Take Phelan Kelly (Ward) and his story. In your own statement he too took part in both trials. But these battles did not solely define him as a leader/pilot.




Speaking of taking out of context, I never said a word about Phelan Kell.
But Phelan Kell, as a character, is defined by his Trial of Position. It is his only raison d'etre, he is an inner sphere character who became a clanner. Without that one event, he's just another bozo who goes missing on the Rock.


Edited by Akalabeth (03/26/16 04:28 AM)
Karagin
03/26/16 06:41 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay Akalabeth you win, clearly you can understand what has been explained.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
03/26/16 07:17 AM
216.53.168.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Look I stand by what everyone has said.

It doesn't matter how you play the game. As long as you are having fun at it.

It is my sincere hope that this conversation explained why some people take offense to power gamers. Why some people enjoy going out there and power gaming.

Look, everyone. Battletech/Mechwarrior is a dynamic universe filled with great storylines, characters that come to life from the pages. And yes large weapon covered robots that crush each other.

So the next time you are wondering the forum and you see a design that pushes the limits or violents your ideals of what should be. I hope that you will express the same level of respect that you want. Talk with the designer about the reasons why he/she took the direction that he/she did. instead of snide comments, be supportive and if you can't do these things. Then take the higher road and move along.

These are my closing thoughts, as I can't think of anything else that would add to this conversation.

Akira
Akalabeth
03/26/16 08:00 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Okay Akalabeth you win, clearly you can understand what has been explained.



Yes. And just to re-iterate my point. What I understand is that it's arrogant to try and define what Battletech IS or IS NOT.

Quote:
Karagin writes:

Ghostrider I think you summed it up, the kill or be killed arena style play, that is NOT Battletech, tactical thinking and use of your lance as team is Battletech,



If you find it offensive that someone create a munchkin design which forces you to play another way, then how offensive is it for one player to try and define what Battletech is? Battletech is different things for different people. It's Mechs, Warships, Battletroops, RPG, Novels, Collecting, Painting, Campaigns, Competitive play, solo play, golden age, dark age, PC games, custom designs, canon designs, etcetera.

Battletech is a game with some, 35 years of history which has manifested itself in a multitude of forms and lore. What it is or is not depends on the player, and for each player how they define it is true and valid, because no one's experience or preferences are more or less valid than any other player's.


Edited by Akalabeth (03/26/16 08:01 AM)
Karagin
03/26/16 11:14 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:



If you find it offensive that someone create a munchkin design which forces you to play another way, then how offensive is it for one player to try and define what Battletech is? Battletech is different things for different people. It's Mechs, Warships, Battletroops, RPG, Novels, Collecting, Painting, Campaigns, Competitive play, solo play, golden age, dark age, PC games, custom designs, canon designs, etcetera.

Battletech is a game with some, 35 years of history which has manifested itself in a multitude of forms and lore. What it is or is not depends on the player, and for each player how they define it is true and valid, because no one's experience or preferences are more or less valid than any other player's.



Thank you for telling me what I find offensive, don't recall saying it was offensive, but okay clearly you missed my points and are really taking this even further. I think I made my points clear and as Cray said it's an opinion. If you feel duels are the heart and soul of the game then congratulations and game on. I don't, but hey guess what I am not telling you how to play, the topic was about what we thought about Power Gaming and such, yet some how it turned into an argument against my opinion on things, odd how that happen, and I must have really hit a nerve around here for this much flak to happen.

Play how you want, and recall if the designs are share be ready for folks to offer their input and be ready for all shades of comments, and if you don't like the comments then ignore them or don't.

So I think we have covered this, each made their point and shown their egos for those who felt the need to do that, so let move on to other topics.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/26/16 01:10 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One player trying to define the game?
Is there private messages going back and forth that the rest of us don't know about?
Or did I get left out of this?

I have stated power gaming tends to ruin the game unless all in the group want to do it. Yet some how this seems to be taking shots at Karagin.

Now unless I am mistaken, the game was supposed to focus on more then one person in battle.
And I know few seem to really follow some of the guidelines for things like customization or even building units. Making a single unit that only one person uses is so highly unlikely, but yet seems to be normal for a few.
I will compliment retry on this, as his is production for the alternative storyline, not just a single unit for his character.
I know a few seem to have more then just one in their universes, but a few seem to be just a single battle to play in.

How many of the overpowering units are used in battle?
Just the one?
Why isn't the entire unit using the same unit?
Because it moves the focus from the person's character to the group. And this seems to be another basic issue of power gaming.
Being the spotlight of the group in the games. Otherwise, let your opponents use the overpowered units and take the canon units and defeat it.
Yeah, that won't work. That tends to go back to the clan invasion. Hard as hell to overcome some of the tech advantages.
And the chance of losing jumps so much, it isn't worth the risk.
Akalabeth
03/26/16 05:14 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Thank you for telling me what I find offensive, don't recall saying it was offensive, but okay clearly you missed my points and are really taking this even further.



The point is you don't like the way some people play and you believe that they shouldn't get offended if you tell them so.

This statement of yours right here by the way, in the context of a Battletech game it would be called Rules Lawyering. Because you're clearly offended by what you define as power gaming, whether you specifically used the word offensive or not is irrelevant.

And what is power gaming?
Is it creating 100-ton pulse boat?
Is it using 0/7 Vehicle Crews?
Is it using 20 Savannah Masters?
Is it only driving Heavy and Assault Mechs?
Only playing Clan machines?
Never following clan honour?
Always using jumpers?
Using high-movement Pulse Jumpers?
Using Land Air Mechs?
Using Assaults with TSM and Hatchets?
Using the same, optimal designs in each weight class?

Power gaming means different things for different people. The ONLY constant in power gaming, is that it's one person doing something that some other player doesn't like. Something that offends that other player's sensibilities of what a game or the spirit of Battletech should or should not be.

And trying to define power gaming, or trying to define the proper way of playing is only an attempt to dismiss or discredit one person's opinions or contributions when the powers of persuasion have failed.

Ie, "This design seems a bit overpowered, you should add drawbacks to make it more interesting and fit the fiction" becomes "This design is purely about power gaming, it's not what this game is about".

And no, no specific person said those exact words in that exact order.
It's an example to illustrate a point.



Quote:
ghostrider writes:

One player trying to define the game?
Is there private messages going back and forth that the rest of us don't know about?




Not sure if you're trolling or not but given that I quoted the relevant portions it should be fairly clear what and who I'm referencing.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/26/16 06:12 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"such as Steerage and Officer/First Class quarters in place of Standard crew quarters"

Steerage is five (5) tons "EACH" person and "NOT" a ton "EACH" person.

Officer/First Class quarters is ten (10) tons "EACH" person and NOT two tons each person.

The design is illegal period. Cheating is cheating no mater how you try to justify it.

I would love to see you take any of these war ship designs to an official battletech competition and see how far you get with the officials to be allowed to use them. as for Power gamer they would be allowed to compete as long as there designs are legal.

Which is worse a power gamer that uses legal designs or someone that has to cheat to do their power gaming?

ATN who is always being accused of power gaming uses very creative but legal designs and does not feel the need to cheat.
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!!!


Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (03/26/16 06:40 PM)
ghostrider
03/26/16 08:35 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Atn has made a few units that are considered over the top, but you are correct. They follow the written rules of the game. A few errors from time to time, but nothing that breaks the written rules.
Same thing with Retry. Same with a few other designs.

But you are suggesting power gaming breaks the rules, yet I believe we are contending that power gaming uses the rules against itself to create the unbeatable unit. Normally it is one on one.
Some issues skirt the lack of rules, but are still considered legal as they are from home games.

The main issue with ATN skirting the rules is there is no canon bay out there to carry the over 100 ton units. That can be gotten around by saying they are disassembled and stored, the rebuild at the sight. But canon rules do not have anything that would allow those oversized mechs to be dropped. I don't know why ATN is singled out, other then his, for a lack of a better term, love for oversized units.
The issues with mixed tech, and being able to get all the new tech without any penalties is another lack of rules, yet the canon sources are adamant the IS will never be on par with the clans. Some issues form with unbalancing the game as they do so. But again, not defined rules to do anything about it.

Screaming illegal design because they didn't follow the rules. I understand and agree with it partially. The fact the few here that scream not canon should have been against the design. It was presented in a fashion to have comments made to suggest if it was viable or crap. Not following the rules is fine to say. I do not know if the person was one of those that jumped on you about a past design or not.

I know a few suggested others went to far to comment on other units put on the site. They will see it from their point of view, and some may be correct. It may be something to think on about responding to things as saying something 2 or 3 times then dropping it.
There will always be a difference of opinions.
Interpretation of the rules and even assuming some that are unwritten will differ.
But power gaming is a fact. Wether you think you do it or not is the key.
Granted it is opinion, but just because someone else does it, doesn't mean it's good to do it as well.
Nic JansmaAdministrator
03/29/16 09:48 AM
73.191.226.169

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hi everyone,

This thread was getting a little heated at times. Thanks for the discussion, but we're going to lock this thread and suggest followups (with an eye towards respecting your neighbor) can be posted if desired in other threads.

Thank you,
-- NicJ
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 41 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: 27264


Contact Admins Sarna.net