Silly Comparisons - is there such a thing as an over-optimized design?

[Nahuris]

Ok, this thread is coming from a number of sources.
One is the recent thread about the Hellstar, and also from some of the rants against modded mechs, and also from several comments from newer players that don't know the convoluted history of FASA.

I've been watching threads go by where there are complaints about this design, or that design being over-optimized, etc.
My question is.... by what standard? Yes, if you compare a Hellstar, or any Clan design, for that matter, against 3025 designs, then yes... it would appear that the clan designs are more optimized than the IS.... but again, by what standard.

I will take a Vulcan, and any player here who wants one, can have a Hellstar.... the goal is to stop Infantry from swarming you.... each mech must face 200 troops, and avoid being swarmed......


People need to remember that Battletech is a collection of retconned rules with various plug ins and add ons. Even the AC/2, AC/10, and AC/20 are add ons. The original rules only had one autocannon... the AC/5. That's why the AC/5 is so very common on so many of the early designs..... it was The Autocannon.
People need to remember, that with the exception of the Large Laser, or PPC.. both of which were considered extremely HOT weapons.... most of the game was based around 5 point hits...
Medium Laser, AC/5, LRM cluster, etc. You had Machine Guns, Small Lasers, and SRM missiles as the small hits --- and the Large Laser and PPC as the big heavy guns.....

As each and every new tech, or idea, was added, the dynamics changed a little..... the AC/2 and AC/10 didn't change a lot, but the AC/20 did.... it was the first headcap weapon that didn't need a successful crit roll to kill a mech in one hit.... and yes, a lot of people called the Hunchback an Over-Optimized design, and whined about it on the table. I've seen games where the GM house ruled that the AC/20 didn't exist.... He modded the Hunchback, and all other 3025 AC/20 carriers,  to carry an AC/10s and that was it.... another one decided that AC's, like LRM's, did their damage in 5 point hits.

The thing that people are missing is that every design is optimized for it's time period.  Let's take one of the common 3025 designs, the Wolverine. The combination of AC/5, SRM6, and Medium Laser gives it the ability to not only hit at various ranges, but also allow it to do more damage as it closes. It's heat efficient, and even while firing all of it's weapons, only makes a total of 10 heat on the run.... you can even jump 4 for no heat, or the max 5 and only build 1 point of heat.
If you look at it and consider the design perameter of the time, it is an extremely good design..... but people want to mod it ---- ok, lets look at those.

Most people replace the AC ... so let's look at that. For continuity, though, we are going to stay within the tech level of the original.....
So... replacing the AC with a PPC ---- not bad, but now you have to bracket fire some, or risk heat penalties....especially if you use the jump jets...... and while you gain some long range damage, you really don't do much more overall damage, because you lower your overall number of to-hit rolls, and if you miss with the PPC, you still get 10 heat. Also, if you take an engine crit, which is always possible on a double 1..... well, let's say that you'll be having to consider your heat with everything you do.

You get the same with the Large Laser... and while you can devote the saved tonnage to heat sinks.... that still maxes you at 16.  Both Lasers + the SRM6 equal 15 heat... 17 if running, and more if you jump, and you have more issues if you do take an engine crit or two..... Plus you lose 6 hexes of advantage with this mod ..... and I know, people are already telling me my math is off, but here, I'll break it down for you. Your long range is 3 shorter, than the AC/5, your medium range is 2 hexes shorter, and your short range is 1 hex shorter.... so, you lose 3 overall hexes at long range.
You lose 2 hexes at medium range, where the AC/5 has a range penalty of 2, and the laser has a 4, and at short range, the AC has an extra hex with no penalty, where the Large Laser has a penalty of 2.
That's 6 overall hexes where the large laser loses advantage to the AC/5.

The other variant I've seen replaces the AC/5 with an LRM15 and 2 tons of ammo --- 5 times the heat, which means you risk those heat issues... 4 less turns of fire before running out of ammo, and double the locations for ammo crits, and a higher chance of taking more damage if you do get an ammo crit......

Ok, here comes the next part -- what about double heat sinks? Well, what about them? If there are double heat sinks on the field, then most likely, there are XL engines, and ER weapons.
XL engines make you more vulnerable to torso damage --- double heat sinks are just plain bulky. Yes, Clan equipment is not as penalized.... but if you are comparing Clan to IS, you are going to have to just get used to it. Clan stuff IS JUST BETTER. Honestly, clan mechs should be considered their own category --- and when played against inner sphere, should ALWAYS be balanced via BV2 or whatever method is used..... Clan and Inner Sphere are different standards.... like IBM and Apple --- yes, there are similarities, but they are not the same.

Again, though, every mod/canon/tweaked design I have ever seen (and I've seen massive numbers) has had the same limitations. They are either designed for a specific role, at which point, they excell, or they are a general design, and therefore not as "optimized." This includes the Hellstar ... yes, if it stands in one place, and doesn't have to take return fire, it can decimate other mechs... and yes, it is an optimal mech.... when you consider mech to mech combat. However, if you have to clear infantry... take out swarms of Savannah Masters, deal with multiple points/squads of battle armor, or provide indirect support.... it is not so optimal.
The Catapult is an optimal fire support design.... as long as you are not trying to cover a raiding force, and have only limited reload capability. Speaking of a raiding force ---- if I am raiding for supplies, I use mechs with hands.... it's MUCH easier to pick up and steal things with hands... and while both the rifleman and warhammer are great for cover fire, they lack the ability to pick up and carry things.

People need to understand that mechs are kind of like any other tool -- some are high power air wrenches, and some are jewelers screw drivers .... if you understand the role the mech is geared for, then it isn't that hard to deal with it. This includes any modded design... because as long as the designer didn't cheat via going over tonnage.... or isn't crossing the clan vs. inner sphere line without some form of balance... then no design that they can come up with is ever going to be better than a canon design or any other design.

And I know, people are going to pop up with all kinds of ideas... but if you look at Battletech as a whole.... there are no over optimal designs.
Someone likes medium laser spam... use Thorns, light, fast, and can flip the arm with the LRM's. Hellstar? Use any of the listed tactics in the thread about it (I prefer LBX cannons).

For every design, there is a method.....whether it's using terrain features, or just using different units than your favorites. I learned how to use vehicles dealing with a player that loved making heavy mechs with nothing but large and medium lasers mated with double heat sinks....... I introduced him to inferno armed infantry, along with LRM and SRM carriers.
I had the SRM carriers behind heavy walls.... he could either take the beating from the LRM's while he tried burning through the walls, or try to rush in, and deal with the infantry and SRM's at close range, trying to get to the LRMs.

Just remember, no matter what you face, this is a game. Have fun.... but don't be afraid to occasionally step outside of your comfort zone..... you might be in for a pleasant surprise.

Nahuris

[Zombyra]

First of all, I really agree with the idea that every mech has it's own purpose.  I think many players would agree that specialists have their role.

Second, are you really asking what the standard is?

The obvious standard is: Do this robot kill other robot good?  Because basicly--that's at the heart of the game.  It's not the whole game, but it's most people's first impression, and it's powerful because of that.  The mechs that draw worry are the ones that don't stand a reasonable chance of killing something smaller than they are--they don't get good press.

Third, I think you were better off without the Wolverine stuff; you didn't need the example, and . . . i don't see good things in the future for that argument. 

My impression is that few people are convinced by "reasons" about how effective or ineffective any given unit might be on any given day.  If they pop the hood and sense a whiff of cheese fueling that giant fusion powered robot--that's a standard everyone can wrap their nose around.

[Frabby]

I think it's important to note that the initial game had no headcappers, as in, no weapon doing 12+ damage in a single location.

The AC/20 which was introduced in CityTech was kinda acceptable, because it sucks.

The ERPPC and all that other Clan broke the game, because the designers forgot to adjust head armor and thus introduced instakill weapons which, statistically, rule the battlefield.

[House Davie Merc]

I don't see there being a problem with "over-optimized " as much as I
see to many "under-optimized" units in the game .

I can see a need to maintain balance ,but IMHO TPTB have often gone to far.

Need an example ?

How about TRO 3050 .

Pretty much the ENTIRE TRO .

The IS already had to fight the Clanners .
Did they really need to push "upgraded" mechs on us that performed WORSE
then their lower tech counterparts ?

I don't see a need for those designs to  be optimized to perfection ,  but
the definately didn't need to be SO bad .     >:(
3050 was perhaps the biggest let down in the history of the game and
the last one to get canon variants for the Unseen for years.

I'm OK with some really optimized designs like the Hellstar as long as they are very costly
to building a force  ( Very high BV ) and other mechs weren't so deliberately "balanced" . 

[Nahuris]

I don't see there being a problem with "over-optimized " as much as I
see to many "under-optimized" units in the game .

I can see a need to maintain balance ,but IMHO TPTB have often gone to far.

Need an example ?

How about TRO 3050 .

Pretty much the ENTIRE TRO .

The IS already had to fight the Clanners .
Did they really need to push "upgraded" mechs on us that performed WORSE
then their lower tech counterparts ?

I don't see a need for those designs to  be optimized to perfection ,  but
the definately didn't need to be SO bad .     >:(
3050 was perhaps the biggest let down in the history of the game and
the last one to get canon variants for the Unseen for years.

I'm OK with some really optimized designs like the Hellstar as long as they are very costly
to building a force  ( Very high BV ) and other mechs weren't so deliberately "balanced" .

I understand the 3050 issue --- but the issue is that the 3050 tech manual was written almost entirely from fluff, rather than play value.
The goal was to create quick "upgrade packages" that could be installed in the field, and to get out "new" tech as quickly as possible...... except that a number of those "upgrades" are now sort of against the rules...... as has been pointed out, they have added rules that limit what can be done, based on facility. But te overall feel was supposed to be a sudden influx of new tech that, while not fully understood, was now available, and every military wanted it on their designs.... the real let down is TRO3055 --- they had the chance to show that the IS was learning how the tech really worked.... but at that point, since the whole Unseen issue was really in full swing, what better way to help phase them out, than leaving them with poor refit?

Nahuris

[Belisarius]

The problem with TRO 3050 is exactly the same problem as 3025 and all the machines that appear suboptimal. The fact of the matter is that, at the time, those upgrades were pretty astounding. They didn't really begin to look like they sucked until people had some time to digest all the new technologies and rulesets. Some great examples are the Trajan and the Gurteltier (pardon if I don't add the umlaut). The synergies of technologies added in those two vehicles simply weren't conceived of when 3050 was published (much less 3025).

In recent historicals, we've found out that the IS had the technology to be mass producing TRO3050 era designs in time for some of those machines to be on the front lines during the War of 3039. So there's no in content reason for the slipshod designs and poor upgrading (Panther pilots, god help you) that we see in the TRO. The only valid explanation is one that takes into account the context as written at the time of publication. At the time of publication, TRO3050 was a reinvention of Battletech, a renewal. It was a time for the entire universe to get turned upside down and for the game to completely reorganize. Ranges shifted dramatically, lethality of combat increased dramatically, and mechs lost some of their primacy (the advent of infantry that could reliably take on mechs).

We see the Hellstar now because we have other designs and synergies of systems that make it defeatable (in a reliable way). Everything else has caught up. C3 in particular makes the Hellstar significantly less of a concern. A couple passes by Sprints or some such with several LRM carriers behind some hills will do the trick nicely. Mines laid by the LRM carriers can help box the Hellstar in while Interdictors using Ghost Target rules can make those fast moving Sprints impossible to hit. That said, that same force would be crushed by the intelligent use of ECM, TCs, and pulse lasers or LB weapons. It's rock/paper/scissors more than the end-all be-all.

Designs are neither over nor under optimized as long as you take into account both the time of their publication (IRL) and the technologies' relative length of service.

[Nahuris]

First of all, I really agree with the idea that every mech has it's own purpose.  I think many players would agree that specialists have their role.

Second, are you really asking what the standard is?

The obvious standard is: Do this robot kill other robot good?  Because basicly--that's at the heart of the game.  It's not the whole game, but it's most people's first impression, and it's powerful because of that.  The mechs that draw worry are the ones that don't stand a reasonable chance of killing something smaller than they are--they don't get good press.

Third, I think you were better off without the Wolverine stuff; you didn't need the example, and . . . i don't see good things in the future for that argument. 

My impression is that few people are convinced by "reasons" about how effective or ineffective any given unit might be on any given day.  If they pop the hood and sense a whiff of cheese fueling that giant fusion powered robot--that's a standard everyone can wrap their nose around.

The Wolerine example was the result of a recent discussion I had with someone --- he was trying to convince me that it was "deliberately" flawed by being saddled with the AC. I was showing how, when you look at it in the tech and game era in which it was designed, that it was actually a very good design.

People need to remember that the game itself has been through eras, and retcons... Citytech is a great example of one of the first retcons.

Nahuris

[bakija]

People need to understand that mechs are kind of like any other tool -- some are high power air wrenches, and some are jewelers screw drivers .... if you understand the role the mech is geared for, then it isn't that hard to deal with it.

I think more the issue is that when you are making actual tools in the actual world, the engineers don't arbitrarily hamstring them for reasons that have nothing to do with anything concrete. Which is a convoluted extension of a clunky metaphor, so I'll drop it now.

The issue here is that cannon mechs in BT tend to swing wide on a scale of "This mech is horrible" to "this mech is awesome and not much different than it would be if I designed it myself". The mechs that are horrible are often horrible either because they were designed long, long ago before the game designers really understood their own game or they are arbitrarily designed badly for "fluff" reasons. In either case, some mechs are just bad, and by "bad", I mean they have sub-optimal weapon loadouts that could easily be much more effective or really dubious design decisions made (like a mostly energy based mech that doesn't have enough heat sinks and could really benefit from a couple more, but *does* have a random SRM2 with a ton of ammo, just so the mech can have a better chance of exploding, for example). On the other hand, some mechs are very well designed, and stand up to most scrutiny, even in the context of a bunch of other badly designed mechs.

The 3050 TRO is regularly pointed at as full of bad mechs. And the reasoning for these mechs being bad and haphazard is covered by fluffy reasons about the mechs being designed during a rough war, and the mechs were built the best they could be built. But while the fluff explains when the designs are arbitrarily bad, they are still arbitrarily bad. If you contrast the 3050 TRO with the 3058 TRO (where the vast majority of mechs are very well designed and effective), it isn't unreasonable to say "Huh. Those 3050 mechs blow. And these 3058 mechs are awesome. Why aren't the 3050 mechs as good as the 3058 mechs, when they use the same rules?"

I realize that some folks love the fluffy aspect of the game, and are totally happy with the arbitrary design of mechs that it sometimes results in. Other people aren't, and see "arbitrarily bad mechs" as arbitrarily bad rather than colorful and interesting.

[deathfrombeyond]

To answer the question in the title in a more general sense, yes, a design can be over optimized, in my opinion.

A custom design at a tournament explicitly forbidding custom designs is a good example of a design that is over optimized. :D

Similarly, showing up with a design customized to deal damage accurately at long range when teaching new players how to play can be over optimized...especially when played on several mapsheets devoid of terrain.

[House Davie Merc]

I realize that some folks love the fluffy aspect of the game, and are totally happy with the arbitrary design of mechs that it sometimes results in. Other people aren't, and see "arbitrarily bad mechs" as arbitrarily bad rather than colorful and interesting.

I just can't see a Hunchback that carries a 14 ton main gun but only
5 rounds of ammo for it as " colorful and interesting"  for any reason .

I doubt the mechwarrior that was stuck with it would consider it an "upgrade" .

My point was that the more optimized units like the Hellstar wouldn't
stick out so much and seem so unbalancing  if so many units weren't so
deliberately "balanced " as TBTB seem to call them .

I'm not saying that more mechs should be optimized.  I'm just saying that to
many have been hamstrung . There's kind of a middle ground between the
two that I wish they made greater efforts  to achieve .

[deathfrombeyond]

I just can't see a Hunchback that carries a 14 ton main gun but only
5 rounds of ammo for it as " colorful and interesting"  for any reason .

I doubt the mechwarrior that was stuck with it would consider it an "upgrade" .

My point was that the more optimized units like the Hellstar wouldn't
stick out so much and seem so unbalancing  if so many units weren't so
deliberately "balanced " as TBTB seem to call them .

I'm not saying that more mechs should be optimized.  I'm just saying that to
many have been hamstrung . There's kind of a middle ground between the
two that I wish they made greater efforts  to achieve .

The only way to make '"hamstrung" 'Mechs not stand out among optimized 'Mechs like the Hellstar is to make them more optimized like the Hellstar.

Although I'm not in favor of doing something like that (because I'm not a big fan of optimized canon designs to begin with), there's also a good reason why TPTB should stray from having too many optimized canon designs.

Remember that TPTB have a vested interest in having as many unique 'Mech chassis in the universe as possible. Why? Because more unique chassis means more TROs that they can sell, and more miniatures that IWM can sell.

IMHO, it is NOT in the best interests of TPTB to have too many designs that are clearly better designed than others, because it limits the amount of miniatures and TROs that the company that TPTB work for can sell.

TPTB have put out "optimized" designs like WorkMechs. How well have those sold compared to the more popular designs?

[skiltao]

I realize that some folks love the fluffy aspect of the game, and are totally happy with the arbitrary design of mechs that it sometimes results in. Other people aren't, and see "arbitrarily bad mechs" as arbitrarily bad rather than colorful and interesting.

Some people view fluff and tonnage as equally arbitrary metrics of how to design a match.

[House Davie Merc]

The only way to make '"hamstrung" 'Mechs not stand out among optimized 'Mechs like the Hellstar is to make them more optimized like the Hellstar.

Maybe I expained it poorly .

I consider giving a mech with a 14 ton main weapon 5 rounds as hamstringing it .
(Just choosing the Hunchie as a popular example )
I don't see  making sure it has at least 10 rounds like it's 3025 version as really
optimizing it .
It's still a limited use design . It's  just that now it isn't gimped with only 5 shots .

Now a 95 tonner with max armor and 4 Clan ER PPCs with the heat sinks to use them ?
Yeah-that's an optimized design .

I'm not advocating optimizing .  I'm advocating gimping them a little less .

That's kind of close to what you're saying ,but not taking it that far .

[Belisarius]

But you're not taking into account the times of publication. Those two designs are twenty some odd years apart OOC. That's huge. Twenty years of playing and testing and gamers grumbling about how much the Hunchback sucks because it has too few rounds.

The Hellstar is the product of grumbling about poor designs. Not all of this has happened at once. It's a stream, with the Hellstar near the end.

[House Davie Merc]

But you're not taking into account the times of publication. Those two designs are twenty some odd years apart OOC. That's huge. Twenty years of playing and testing and gamers grumbling about how much the Hunchback sucks because it has too few rounds.

The Hellstar is the product of grumbling about poor designs. Not all of this has happened at once. It's a stream, with the Hellstar near the end.

I remember my friends and I buying the TRO and the record sheets the very first day we saw them  . Back then IIRC the only place for us to buy them locally was at Walden Books in the mall and we were rather excited .  ( Pre-internet days guys )
My excitement turned to disappointment  by the time I reached the back cover.
Those 3 used all new IS mechs from the new 3050 TRO .

I stayed with my older 3025 designs (Except for the new Archer) and they pretty much laughed at me .

We decided to play 3 games and switch teams for each game but each kept the same mechs .
My team won every game and the other 3 pretty much agreed that the new tech was great but the new
canon mechs were crap .
We then decided to each make our own custom Clan tech mechs for a game.
Guess what I came up with ?

Yup .
A 4 ER PPC monster with a rather familiar loadout .

It didn't take us 20 years to figure out .

It took a single Saturday a long time ago .

[Belisarius]

It took you that long... it took a lot longer for TPTB to decide that it was acceptable to publish. We've all known since Clantech came out what 'right' looked like. So why, logically, wasn't it published until now? The only reason is that canon design for everyone else has caught up.

[Stormfury]

I have less of a problem with highly effective designs being published than I do the overwhelming tendancy to assign them to the Hell's Horses or (former) FedCom powers. The better a design is, the more likely it is to belong to one of them, be it Battle Armour, 'Mech, vehicle, or ASF.

[Nahuris]

That's the big thing that people don't seem to understand, is the time periods between publications, and supposedly in game.
Yes... the 3050 TRO was sort of a nut shot.... I'm not fond of those... my opinion was that it was very politically driven. Battletech hadn't really changed all that much up until then... yes, you had Citytech... and you went from the original 16 designs being it, to the 3025 TRO......and the 4th Succession War was sort of dragging on and on.....
I think part of the reason for nerfing the IS mechs was to convince people to try the New Shiney Clan designs.... which, if you really look at them.... also suck. The original 16 omnis really were never designed to fight each other.... especially the Loki. Also, look at the fluff of the Vulture.... they specifically talk about the "sense of forboding" that pilots get from watching it sit and "provide support"......
Like a clan warrior is going to be content to lob missiles in to support another warrior's glory gaining.......

However, in that same fluff, while describing the benifit of omni technology...... one of the things they specifically mention is that a mech can be outfitted for PILOT PREFERENCE..... basically begging people to design their own omni configurations..... and yes, that is in canon text. You can find it on page 7.

The point is, the clan mechs really aren't all that great... especially with the source books claiming that the clans usually field a force equal to about half the numbers of the defenders on a planet, to maximize honor.... yeah, they would have been torn up facing 3058 designs under those conditions..... and in my opinion, why so many of the 3050 designs just suck.


One of my fondest memories was a battle, where according the Ref.... these were random rolled mechs....
My opponent had a binary, of mostly heavies.... I remember a Daishi, and a Masakari.... plus at least 2 Mad Cats, and a couple of Thors... and I got a company of mechs, plus 6 vehicles.....

My mechs consisted of 4 Urbanmechs, a 3025 Marauder L, a 3025 Vindicator, and 6 3025 Chargers.....
The Vehicles were 3 Pikes and 3 Hetzer Wheeled Assault Guns.
I was, however, defending a forward fire base against assault, and I was supposed to be a Liao planetary militia......
So, I asked the ref if there were any construction workers there, and he said yes... so I had those workers cut me 6 I-beams for the Chargers...... meanwhile, I had the heavy bulldozers building ramparts for my vehicles and mechs....

Once the clan came knocking, I began moving my pikes up, firing off the AC/2's and then dropping back behind cover..... finally, the clan player got tired of playing the long range sniper, and decided to try and over-run me.... and which point, 6 Chargers, carrying I-beam clubs came boiling out and rushed into hand to hand.... the clan mechs were so busy fighting off the crazed pilots and their 16 point hits on the punch table, that they ignored the Hetzers and Urbanmechs that were going for back shots.....

I learned a LOT during that game, and later found out that there was a bet going on between a couple of people, over who could string together the most victories..... and each guy in the bet had a buddy willing to ref for him......yeah... I ruined his string of victories......

Prior to that battle, I had been an almost diehard 3025 grognard, and hated these "cheesy, uber, high-tech mechs that "weren't Battletech"" --- Battletech was worrying about your heat curve, and deciding that firing the AC was just too much heat to risk...... It was having a Rifleman as your Heavy Support.... even if you only fired one Large Laser a turn, and feared Stingers and Wasps.... it was the Locust charge....It was taking a Quickdraw and thinking how this canon design builds character.... etc.

What I eventually found is that Battletech is more or less a game, and a very flexible one at that......Watching my opponent (or should I say victim) on the other side of the table look at me like I was insane, when I declared 6 charges from 6 Chargers... and then having those 5/8 mechs chasing his mechs around beating on them with clubs made me realize a lot about the game..... Yes, I did win... but more importantly, I learned.

Battletech is a Military styled game... and that means that there will be arms races, and that there will be ideas, that while great on paper, don't quite perform as hoped, in the field. There will be mechs like the Russian tank they built in the '70's --- it had the heaviest armor they could manage, but couldn't move faster than 10 miles an hour on roads.... let alone cross country. I was slow enough, that it could be bombed..... But... it had a huge gun......

There will be lemons, and there will be shining examples, and plenty of useage for both... the above mentioned tank was eventually overhauled, and by the '80's had been re-designed into a very effective mobile artillery piece.....

I'm rather fond of the way the game has gone --- and facing a Hellstar could be fun..... yes, I may lose..... or I may bumrush it with Chargers....
The point is, that as long as a mech uses it's available tonnage.... then it does have a worth on the table. You might have to decide how to use it..... The Hunchback with only one ton of ammo has a use..... you get a small pulse laser, which while it isn't quite as good against infantry as a machine gun... also doesn't have a 400 point boom included. It still has two medium lasers, AND amazingly enough, doesn't have a big red meter on it that shows how full of ammo it is!!!!  Leave it guarding a missile boat, and it's still effective. Even with only one shell left, it still has an AC/20......Put it in a lance with other designs sporting Large Pulse Lasers, let them fire, and only use the medium lasers until you know you have a good shot..... most people are going to be trying to deal with those -2 t hit bonuses......


The goal, though, should always be having fun..... and sometimes, that comes from dealing with custom designs, or other things that make you think and learn.

Nahuris

[deathfrombeyond]

Maybe I expained it poorly .

I consider giving a mech with a 14 ton main weapon 5 rounds as hamstringing it .
(Just choosing the Hunchie as a popular example )
I don't see  making sure it has at least 10 rounds like it's 3025 version as really
optimizing it .
It's still a limited use design . It's  just that now it isn't gimped with only 5 shots .

Now a 95 tonner with max armor and 4 Clan ER PPCs with the heat sinks to use them ?
Yeah-that's an optimized design .

I'm not advocating optimizing .  I'm advocating gimping them a little less .

If one isn't hypothetically advocating optimizing, then why would one consistently keep on bringing up optimized designs as designs that should be more prevalent than gimped designs?

[StoneRhino]

First of all, I really agree with the idea that every mech has it's own purpose.  I think many players would agree that specialists have their role.

The obvious standard is: Do this robot kill other robot good?  Because basicly--that's at the heart of the game.  It's not the whole game, but it's most people's first impression, and it's powerful because of that.  The mechs that draw worry are the ones that don't stand a reasonable chance of killing something smaller than they are--they don't get good press.

My impression is that few people are convinced by "reasons" about how effective or ineffective any given unit might be on any given day.  If they pop the hood and sense a whiff of cheese fueling that giant fusion powered robot--that's a standard everyone can wrap their nose around.

I think what the problem with the hellstar is that it is being cut loose in an environment that is devoid of additional units. For new players that are still using nothing but mechs, a hellstar is going to be insane. When it is placed in a game against vehicles, it still rocks the turrets off. IN a game that adds in infantry, it might see some problems. The biggest threat under the tourney rules would be groups of infantry, or battlearmor as it has no AI weaponry. The problem is getting the infantry from the their starting positions to where the hellstar is going to be. It is not impossible, but newer players are going to have difficulty to varying degrees, in making that happen.

The other problem with designs like the hellstar is that they are unleashed in an environment devoid of aircraft and artillery. The first game against a few friends years ago had them fielding designs just like the hellstar, if not the same thing as the hellstar that had lots of sinks and 4 clan er ppcs. Their goal was to sit back in a tree line and cut my team's mechs down as we advanced on them. The problem with that is that we did advance on them, but I had an artillery unit that made them pay for sitting in that treeline. They stuck to their ground and did take some mechs down, but ultimately they lost due to their inflexibility.  It was the first and last time such a thing was tried by them, they learned then and for as long as we got to play BT. There is a problem with how the game is set up right now as the rules for fighters and artillery are now optional L3 rules that players may never move up to since some players may want to keep the game static and locked in at nothing but mechs.

There are solutions, but the solutions are partially locked up in a place that some might not get into either due to a lack of experience, or a player within a group that sees their hellstar's reign being challenged if other units are brought into the game.

As for designs that do 15 point hits, they are a serious pain. the closest thing to that for the I.S., that I recall would be a Thunderhawk, followed by a Devastator. One is doing 3 x15 slugs and the other is 2x15 slugs+2x10point slugs. Great anti-mech and anti-vehicle designs, but lousy at killing infantry units. I remember a few of us would laugh as one player would fire gauss rifles at elementals or weaker battle armor suits. We always asked if he knew that was complete over kill. We knew the answer to the question, but we asked just for a good laugh because of how much the person overkilled the poor little things. Then again, I don't think he had much of a chance because of the designs he used to use. The best thing to use against such a person is various types of units as they cannot rely purely on anti-mech style designs.

A hellstar is an expensive unit and BV2 should be used in any game in order to help balance things out so that such a design is not going to be as abusive as it would if players simply used tonnage in a fight to determine their forces.  As for there being an over-optimized design, I think thats a bit off as the design is going for killing mechs and it should do it rather well. Is it to optimized for a combined arms game of BT? I would say it is damn close, but it is going to be up to the opposing player to make it pay for its optimization.

The way I see it, players are going to hit a few points in their time in the game. They are going to go "ohh all speed! you cant hit me!" phase, to the "I have to much armor for you to ever beat me! 100tonners FTW!" to "The clans are the ultimate! You guys are noobs for not using them, DIE!". The Hellstar, and in the 3025 era, the Awesome are mechs that are going to be designed by the players within their assault mech era. If they are beating on newer players then they are going to seem unstoppable. Against an experienced player, by that I do not mean a player that just played longer but stuck in one of those modes, they will find that their ultimate mech is not as great as they thought it was going into the game.

[Belisarius]

All true, StoneRhino. What the OP was getting at, I think, is that the Hellstar is only optimized for a particular kind of combat and only because it has been released after everyone has known bad canon designs in the past. There was a fair amount of (legitimate) outrage after folks used the TRO3050 designs for the first time and realized that 3025 designs actually faired better against the Clans (for most designs). But the game has evolved since then. I was incredibly frustrated when 3075 came out because it seemed like the WoB got all the goodies (which they did), but then a friend reminded me that TRO3075 is the first of a new breed of TROs. We're not introducing huge volumes of new tech all at once but rather little pieces here and there and only in variants of new designs that are using tested equipment first. Those new designs are showing increasing optimization. I think we can all agree that there's a night and day difference between 3085 and 3050 in terms of playability. I don't think there's one 3085 design that I dislike enough to say 'I wouldn't use that machine'. There are several in 3050 not the least of which is the poor lamented Hunchback with the one ton of ammo. Now, of course, if pressed, I would use whatever was to hand in the most efficient way I could devise, but it still says something that TRO3085 includes so many excellent designs compared to TRO3050.

The game has evolved. Not just personally for individuals, but also the game itself. The designers and TPTB have grown and changed. The Hellstar is a product of that process, nothing more.

[Nahuris]

All true, StoneRhino. What the OP was getting at, I think, is that the Hellstar is only optimized for a particular kind of combat and only because it has been released after everyone has known bad canon designs in the past. There was a fair amount of (legitimate) outrage after folks used the TRO3050 designs for the first time and realized that 3025 designs actually faired better against the Clans (for most designs). But the game has evolved since then. I was incredibly frustrated when 3075 came out because it seemed like the WoB got all the goodies (which they did), but then a friend reminded me that TRO3075 is the first of a new breed of TROs. We're not introducing huge volumes of new tech all at once but rather little pieces here and there and only in variants of new designs that are using tested equipment first. Those new designs are showing increasing optimization. I think we can all agree that there's a night and day difference between 3085 and 3050 in terms of playability. I don't think there's one 3085 design that I dislike enough to say 'I wouldn't use that machine'. There are several in 3050 not the least of which is the poor lamented Hunchback with the one ton of ammo. Now, of course, if pressed, I would use whatever was to hand in the most efficient way I could devise, but it still says something that TRO3085 includes so many excellent designs compared to TRO3050.

The game has evolved. Not just personally for individuals, but also the game itself. The designers and TPTB have grown and changed. The Hellstar is a product of that process, nothing more.

You worded it much better than I did....

And while I'll agree with the stats on paper for the 3085 mechs.... some of the artwork desperately needs help....LOL

I'll also agree with the fact that in 3075 and 3085, the WOB did seem to get all the good toys... and in my opinion, it is a refreshing change...... As much as I understand that the combination of Steiner money, with NAIS, means that the FedCom could put out, I was rather getting tired of FedCom always getting the best options.... even in TRO3050, the few mechs that could be considered upgrades were primarily FedCom.... With the Marauder-S being a good example.... replacing the AC with a Gauss Rifle.

Something else that is being missed, though, and I believe it's important... is that the game is now Catalyst owned.... rather than FASA owned.
FASA, while they did create the base that is Battletech, didn't seem to pursue things to the logical ends that Catalyst is doing. I'm not criticizing FASA so much, as noting that the directions seem a bit different. For one thing, your faction now represents more than just which mediocre, but common design, is more represented on your tables. Liao has stealth armor....and they are getting new mechs to support it. Kurita is actually getting the mechs that support the C3 that they developed. And not only is the Marian Hegonomy getting rockets, but they are getting both current mech variants, and also new designs, that utilize it.
Each house has an XTRO ---- and that's really cool.
I LIKE the fact you can tell, by what's on the table, what forces you are facing. And again, it does sort of fit the fluff .... when the Star League fell, everyone grabbed up what they could.... but what they got would have been similar to what everyone else got... and then over time, they add their own flavor. 
What I suspect is going to happen is that we are going to continue to see newer mechs that actually are effective for the role they are designed for. With the continued increase in the Lethality of weapons, and the shift away from the standard 5 point cluster or hit as average.... mechs will become more specialized, as the need for using your units together increases. Unless there is a radical change in armor..... the specialization will be needed for survival.

I also expect that we will soon see improved LRM and SRM ammo --- maybe LRM's that do 2 points a misssile, and SRM's that do 3.... or whatever..... if not, then I expect to see a gradual die out of missile launchers, as they tend to fair poorly when you combine things like targeting computers, double heat sinks and Enhanced ER PPC's.... etc.

The game is evolving...... and so far, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Nahuris

[soshi]

BT has some variants to how the game is played,  In the old solaris VII rules set mechs like the  hunchback 5m are really good (they probably will not be able to use all of it's 5 shots in one game),  and in fact was introduced to the game for that rules set.  Most bracket fire mechs don't do very well in that game,  they build up to much heat to fast.  Or end up having weapons they will not use.   

Some mechs are build to take advantage of Double blind rules,  they tend to be cheap  but not very good in a fight  but offer other benefits  such as locating the general area of the enemy or helping to hide yours.  When you limit your self to just the basic rules within the basic game  and judge ever mech just on a small part of the basic rules,  then yes some mechs should probably not been published at all.

[bakija]

I just can't see a Hunchback that carries a 14 ton main gun but only
5 rounds of ammo for it as " colorful and interesting"  for any reason .

Yes. Correct. I agree with you 100%. That Hunchback (IIC?) design is a perfect example of an arbitrarily designed bad mech. And yet still, some folks will defend it for being "an interesting design with strengths and weaknesses that aren't apparent just by looking at it on paper", or whatever.

My point was that the more optimized units like the Hellstar wouldn't
stick out so much and seem so unbalancing  if so many units weren't so
deliberately "balanced " as TBTB seem to call them .

Also correct? (I'm not quite sure who you are responding to here, as there is nothing that I wrote that could possibly be viewed as disagreeing with this point).

When you compare the IS mechs in the 3058 TRO with the IS mechs in the 3050 TRO, you have one book that is chock full of amazing, well designed and well thought out mechs and another book that is chock full of horrible, incredibly flawed mechs. BV certainly helps even things out, but if you aren't using BV, then you just end up with a lot of arbitrarily bad mechs in the 3050 book, especially when compared to the excellent ones if 3058, given that they are using the same rules for design.

I'm not saying that more mechs should be optimized.  I'm just saying that to
many have been hamstrung . There's kind of a middle ground between the
two that I wish they made greater efforts  to achieve .

Like, I don't have all the history of the game perfectly, but as far as I can tell, the mechs that were designed early in the game's history (see: 3025 and 3050) are a lot more often arbitrarily bad than the ones designed later in the game's history (see: 3058, etc.) It is as if the designers actually figured out their own game as time went on...

[Frabby]

Everybody loves the Awesome.
Everybody hates the Charger.

People pestered me with that 20 years ago to the point where I wrote a scenario where these two 80-tonners face off against each other. In heavily wooded terrain. Now who sucks?

(The concept got dragged from the grave and, with a bit of spit and polish, became the BattleCorps scenario "Twins".)

[bakija]

Some people view fluff and tonnage as equally arbitrary metrics of how to design a match.

The rules that govern mech design balance (either by tonnage or BV) is, at least in theory, an equal measuring stick. Yeah, the rules aren't perfect, but in theory, a mech worth 2000 BV should be roughly balanced against another mech worth 2000 BV. Or tons. Or whatever. Again. These systems aren't perfect, but they are theoretically balanced across the board.

Arbitrary fluff/made up tech rational/whatever has no such theoretical balance--having the 3050 Panther use single heat sinks with an ERPPC is an arbitrary hamstringing of that design with no real solid balance point behind it. Giving the Marauder a ton of AC ammo in an otherwise completely empty torso location is an arbitrary hamstringing of that design with no real solid balance point behind it.

If the rules provided a benefit for arbitrarily bad mech design, then arbitrarily designing bad mechs would make sense. There are slight, very minimal tangible benefits to arbitrary bad design (i.e. when using BV, you get a 15 point bonus for that time bomb ammo placement in the empty torso which is about 1% of a mech's BV, but then you get the same 15 point bonus if you have that ammo surrounded by 5 heat sinks; it isn't impossible that the 3050 Panther gets a discount on its ERPPC due to the single heat sinks, but given how the system works, I think if it gets a discount on anything, it is the SRM4, and it is a very small discount), but if there were tangible benefits that made building bad mechs more balanced, it'd all be ok. Granted, such tangible benefits would be virtually impossible to define in a reasonable system, which is why the reasonable system doesn't define them; the reasonable system (either BV or tonnage, depending on what system you are looking at) tends to assume that the designer isn't intentionally making bad design decisions, and given that, it works out ok. Except a lot of the cannon mechs are arbitrarily designed with bad decisions baked right in.

[Martius]

And not only is the Marian Hegonomy getting rockets, but they are getting both current mech variants, and also new designs, that utilize it.

No. We don't. Not anymore.

[deathfrombeyond]

Arbitrary fluff/made up tech rational/whatever has no such theoretical balance--having the 3050 Panther use single heat sinks with an ERPPC is an arbitrary hamstringing of that design with no real solid balance point behind it. Giving the Marauder a ton of AC ammo in an otherwise completely empty torso location is an arbitrary hamstringing of that design with no real solid balance point behind it.

There's no theoretical balance with fielding WorkMechs against BattleMechs. WorkMechs are so hamstrung. Maybe we should just get rid of the idea of WorkMechs altogether, because they aren't BattleMechs.

Moreover, there's no theoretical balance when given a UM-R60 to fight against two Warhawks Prime on empty terrain. Whoever has to field a UM-R60 is just so hamstrung compared to whomever gets those Warhawks Prime. Maybe we should just get rid of the idea of inferior forces altogether, because they aren't superior.

[Col.Hengist]

They are still a good plot device for rp reasons. There is also a long history of their use.

[Fallen_Raven]

The other problem with designs like the hellstar is that they are unleashed in an environment devoid of aircraft and artillery. ... There is a problem with how the game is set up right now as the rules for fighters and artillery are now optional L3 rules that players may never move up to since some players may want to keep the game static and locked in at nothing but mechs.

The rules for fighters, and for ground attacks from them, are in Total Warfare. You are perfectly aloud to bring them into standard play. Just be prepared for all of the complaints about "cheating", and the questions about rules that may slow the game to a crawl.