Why are penalties to hit on the heat scale so inconsistent?

[skiltao]

Addressing tangential issues only:

if the man holding the physical proofs that were used by the developers in the development of the book say there's nothing in there about it - there's nothing there. Like the Mark I omnis, there's never been any evidence for the supposed minimum range of 3.

Although errors are sometimes introduced late in editing, others survive from even the earliest drafts. For instance, my copy of TR:3050 isn't sure whether C3 Master Computers are 5 tons or 4 tons; as Hellraiser noted, it's similarly unsure whether LRMs have 0 or 6 hexes of minimum range.

As for the Mk 1 omnis, court documents claim that the Mad Cat was previewed in a magazine two years before TR:3050 came out. The document isn't perfect (it assigns the Nightsky to TR:3050) but if the chain of events 39-42 is correct, then TR:3050's art is drawn from the Omnis as they appeared in the Virtual World Entertainment software -- which is to say, that art corresponds to actual BattleTech stats which existed (if only briefly) for use with the Virtual World game, and might not have been documented by FASA to begin with. Might not have been documented by VWE either, for that matter.

Also, what? ;)

If only whoever faked them could have remembered to use factional accounting, seen in both the earlier TRO2750 and the original TRO3050. That alone exposes that the designs were produced after TRO3050

Not necessarily - most people take crap for notes. The designs could just as easily have been "fixed" accidentally (say, by popular Mech design software) or intentionally altered to abide by current rules.

Pulse lasers meanwhile were waaay too powerful with TC, so rather than fix the pulse lasers (ie by giving them shorter ranges as they probably should have, or maybe decreased the bonus to -1), they simply nixed the TC+Pulse Laser combo.

I'm fairly certain that Maximum Tech intended its ER and X-Pulse lasers as a fix. An optional fix, sure, but one that fundamentally changes the balance of energy weapons.

As for autocannon, I don't know what's up with the crits or the LB-20's mass, but the /2 and /5 couldn't get lighter without matching the Clan autocannon for mass (there's no precedent for shaving a half ton off), which would just change that question to "why were TPTB inconsistent with the Clantech autocannon mass advantage?"

One box or point of heat may be ten degrees, or fifty, or five hundred. That, however, is irrelevant; what is relevant is how it effects the 'Mech... thus, the heat scale.

Which is to say: you're offering additional information while neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

I submit to our readers my proposition, that the question is: "Does Akalabeth's proposal make BattleTech better? Or not."

"Yes, marginally, but the range brackets on TAG and ER Lasers are more annoying."

[Devens]

Then we get to modifiers to hit
+1 to hit at 8 heat
+2 to hit at 13 heat (5 later)
+3 to hit at 17 heat (4 later)
+4 to hit at 24 heat (7 later)

What the heck is going on? Is there a reason why they're applied so non-sensically? And more importantly, is there a reason this was carried over into the current rule set?

I suspect the only reason it's like this is because with 3 different progressively affective outcomes already and with the desire to not have more than one effect per any given heat level they just squeezed them in wherever they could but what we're left with is inconsistent to say the least.

Consistancy is not required for the heat scale to work well.  It works fine as is so why fix something that is not broken?         

If you look closely their is only 1 heat effect per heat point value much as you said.   Using a Flat 5 would have put +3 at 18 and +4 at 23.  Those are occupied by other items and so were moved to 17 and 24 the closesed empty spots repectively.  I think its pretty clear that they did not want more than one thing getting worse at any heat point.  I also think that they wanted players to not be afraid of generating heat if their was a sutable reward to go with the risk of missing the shot and still generating heat.  Having multiple items at any givin place on the heat scale may have discouraged that.  Given the innate fear of the heat scale many players alreay have I think that changes that apply multiple items per point would prabably make it worse for the game not better.(their are players that refuse to generate any heat at all under any circumstance, even the first few points that have no penalty at all.)

[SCC]

As for the Mk 1 omnis, court documents claim that the Mad Cat was previewed in a magazine two years before TR:3050 came out. The document isn't perfect (it assigns the Nightsky to TR:3050) but if the chain of events 39-42 is correct, then TR:3050's art is drawn from the Omnis as they appeared in the Virtual World Entertainment software -- which is to say, that art corresponds to actual BattleTech stats which existed (if only briefly) for use with the Virtual World game, and might not have been documented by FASA to begin with. Might not have been documented by VWE either, for that matter.

Do you know what PX 795 is, because it would seem to at the crux of the issue?

Not necessarily - most people take crap for notes. The designs could just as easily have been "fixed" accidentally (say, by popular Mech design software) or intentionally altered to abide by current rules.

Or it could be that as these where pre-release the original designer's decided not to bother

As for autocannon, I don't know what's up with the crits or the LB-20's mass, but the /2 and /5 couldn't get lighter without matching the Clan autocannon for mass (there's no precedent for shaving a half ton off), which would just change that question to "why were TPTB inconsistent with the Clantech autocannon mass advantage?"

Among Laser's and some Clan Missile, yes, Autocannon, No

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Given that players don't even have to memorize heat induced penalties because they're printed right on the record sheet, the argument that having them apply in a semi-irregular pattern inhibits new players' ability to learn the game falls flat.

[Akalabeth]

Given that players don't even have to memorize heat induced penalties because they're printed right on the record sheet, the argument that having them apply in a semi-irregular pattern inhibits new players' ability to learn the game falls flat.

Learning 1 pattern is less difficult than learning 4 separate numbers. It's that simple.
Ie "+1 per 6 heat" instead of 8,13,17,24

Of course you can also argue that looking at the sheet is simple, but when they're looking at the sheet they're not learning anything, they're referencing. And referencing takes time, which means the game will be longer. When I play with level 1 weaponry (or "introductory rules")I don't ever need to look at the sheet, because the ranges are intinuitive. This saves time.

And in general one can argue, games that take a shorter amount of time are generally preferable to most gamers. One of the key concerns for many people getting into a game is "how long does the average game take". So if the game is more intinuitive, with ranges and other notation which is consistent and predictable, people can better anticipate and consequently learn the values. This means they're doing less referencing, and can finish an average game faster. Thus, the game will be more appealing to more gamers.

If the game is less consistent, with unpredictable values, people will be required to do more referencing. Which slows the game, and thus makes it less appealing.

[Charlie Tango]

Learning 1 pattern is less difficult than learning 4 separate numbers. It's that simple.
Ie "+1 per 6 heat" instead of 8,13,17,24

Of course you can also argue that looking at the sheet is simple, but when they're looking at the sheet they're not learning anything, they're referencing. And referencing takes time, which means the game will be longer. When I play with level 1 weaponry (or "introductory rules")I don't ever need to look at the sheet, because the ranges are intinuitive. This saves time.

And in general one can argue, games that take a shorter amount of time are generally preferable to most gamers. One of the key concerns for many people getting into a game is "how long does the average game take". So if the game is more intinuitive, with ranges and other notation which is consistent and predictable, people can better anticipate and consequently learn the values. This means they're doing less referencing, and can finish an average game faster. Thus, the game will be more appealing to more gamers.

If the game is less consistent, with unpredictable values, people will be required to do more referencing. Which slows the game, and thus makes it less appealing.

Seriously?  Looking at the sheet to see a heat effect slows the game down too much? 

The player still typically marks their heat on the sheet in some fashion (be it paper clip, tick mark, something) to recall where their heat was at for the next turn.  So it slows down the game too much to shift their eyes over a few inches and read the effect?

 ::)

[Kit deSummersville]

Seriously?  Looking at the sheet to see a heat effect slows the game down too much? 

The player still typically marks their heat on the sheet in some fashion (be it paper clip, tick mark, something) to recall where their heat was at for the next turn.  So it slows down the game too much to shift their eyes over a few inches and read the effect?

 ::)

Hey, it's the difference between a 4:12:32 game versus a 4:12:13 game.

[cray]

And referencing takes time, which means the game will be longer.

Spending 1 second glancing at a record sheet's heat scale when you should be marking and adjusting the 'Mech's heat scale on the record sheet anyway is not a game-altering time savings.

Do you make your 'Mechs' record sheets available to other players for inspection during a game, so they can see your current armor, ammo, and heat? Fair game play pretty much requires referencing and updating the heat scale of your 'Mech(s) each turn.

As for time savings, using a calculation is only time saving compared to referencing a sheet (particularly a sheet that should be in front of you) until you finish memorizing the heat chart. The heat chart isn't rocket science to learn, and recall of a well-memorized number from a small group of topical numbers is faster than repeated calculation.

Of course you can also argue that looking at the sheet is simple, but when they're looking at the sheet they're not learning anything

I learned most of the basic gameplay rules by referencing sheets. The heat scale, hit locations, critical hit results, weapon ranges - frequent referencing sheets is how I learned, moreso than digging through the rest of the rules. As did the rest of my group. We got to the point where we'd play simple pick-up "paperless" games of "Wasps on Wasps" without record sheets (other than armor scratch sheets) and no rule books because we had everything else memorized: the Wasp's armor layout and weapons; the heat charts; the weapons; hit locations (well, front/back), etc. That memorization was a result of frequently referencing record sheets: yes, we learned from it.

[Kit deSummersville]

The heat chart isn't rocket science to learn.

Unless you are playing Aerotech.  ^-^

[Maniac Actual]

Learning 1 pattern is less difficult than learning 4 separate numbers. It's that simple.
Ie "+1 per 6 heat" instead of 8,13,17,24

Of course you can also argue that looking at the sheet is simple, but when they're looking at the sheet they're not learning anything, they're referencing. And referencing takes time, which means the game will be longer. When I play with level 1 weaponry (or "introductory rules")I don't ever need to look at the sheet, because the ranges are intinuitive. This saves time.

And in general one can argue, games that take a shorter amount of time are generally preferable to most gamers. One of the key concerns for many people getting into a game is "how long does the average game take". So if the game is more intinuitive, with ranges and other notation which is consistent and predictable, people can better anticipate and consequently learn the values. This means they're doing less referencing, and can finish an average game faster. Thus, the game will be more appealing to more gamers.

If the game is less consistent, with unpredictable values, people will be required to do more referencing. Which slows the game, and thus makes it less appealing.

So.... Memorizing 8.13.17.24 is harder than 6,12,18,24?  Four numbers to memorize are four numbers to memorize.  I mean, if I can memorize the Numbers for the forward/rear hit locations chart, I can handle the heat scale.  In fact, typing this post..... I just memorized the heat chart numbers! O0

[Paul]

If the game is less consistent, with unpredictable values, people will be required to do more referencing.

What's your opinion of TacOps, p.104?

Paul

[Kit deSummersville]

Memorizing ONE PATTERN is easier than memorizing four separate numbers with no pattern whatsoever. It's a fact.

Obviously, that depends on the pattern. More of a likelihood than a fact then.

[Charlie Tango]

Still don't see the need to memorize the heat scale.  It's printed on the sheet; has been since the beginnings of the game.  I think it's been printed on every different variant of standard sheet we've had. 

Most of the time I can get the front/rear hit chart right from memory; I do better the more often I play.

I know the breakpoints for target movement mods are 3, 5, 7,  and 10 hexes (oh look, another nonlinear progression!)

But the heat scale?  It's on the sheet; why memorize it?

[Kit deSummersville]

Tell them about ER Laser ranges? Tell them 1/2/5

2/4/5 would be a better thing to tell them. Of course, mandating a regular progression takes all the fun out of the snub-nosed PPC and MRMs.

[Akalabeth]

Still don't see the need to memorize the heat scale.  It's printed on the sheet; has been since the beginnings of the game.  I think it's been printed on every different variant of standard sheet we've had. 

Most of the time I can get the front/rear hit chart right from memory; I do better the more often I play.

I know the breakpoints for target movement mods are 3, 5, 7,  and 10 hexes (oh look, another nonlinear progression!)

But the heat scale?  It's on the sheet; why memorize it?

Imagine a game where the players can learn the weapon values and heat scale intinuitively and thus memorize them easily.
You wouldn't even NEED a heatscale. Nor would you even need to print the weapon values on the sheet. When people only need to learn 3 values per weapon (heat/damage/range and sometimes minimum) it's a lot easier than 5-6. And when you have a mech with four different weapons, you only need to know ~12 values instead of 24-30? Just have a weapon reference sheet at hand in case you've forgotten.

With this you could save on record sheets, put two mechs to a sheet? Put the mechs on fancy reusable cards ala Federation Commander.

Gloss up the game, streamline it, make it faster playing without sacrificing the core mechanics.

[Charlie Tango]

Imagine a game where the players can learn the weapon values and heat scale intinuitively and thus memorize them easily.
You wouldn't even NEED a heatscale. Nor would you even need to print the weapon values on the sheet. When people only need to learn 3 values per weapon (heat/damage/range and sometimes minimum) it's a lot easier than 5-6. And when you have a mech with four different weapons, you only need to know ~12 values instead of 24-30? Just have a weapon reference sheet at hand in case you've forgotten.

With this you could save on record sheets, put two mechs to a sheet? Put the mechs on fancy reusable cards ala Federation Commander.

Gloss up the game, streamline it, make it faster playing without sacrificing the core mechanics.

We have that, it's called Quick Strike...

[Akalabeth]

2/4/5 would be a better thing to tell them. Of course, mandating a regular progression takes all the fun out of the snub-nosed PPC and MRMs.

Yes my mistake. Typo.
Like I say one or two exceptions would probably be fine.
Though I do find it interesting that you say "Take all the fun out of snub-nosed PPC and MRMs" instead of "Take all the fun out of Inner Sphere Light, Regular and Heavy Gauss Rifles, ER SL + LLs, Ultra Autocannons (2,5 + 20), HMGs, LPLs, Snub Nose PPCs, MRMs, Rocket Launcher 10,15,20, Imp Narc AND Tag. ANNNND Clan LB-X 5, Gauss Rifle, HMG, ER Micro and Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, ER PPC and TAG".

So the question is, is your statement indicative of the fact that irregular weapon ranges only matter when there is a story-based reason behind them? I mean why not make the ER PPC 7/14/21 or 8/16/24, especially when games are based on a point system which should factor that into account anyway. In games how often do those two extra hexes actually come into play? They do certainly, but enough to warrant the irregularity?

We have that, it's called Quick Strike...

Quick strike is not battletech.
I'm talking about streamlining a game, not dumbing it down.

[Kit deSummersville]

So the question is, is your statement indicative of the fact that irregular weapon ranges only matter when there is a story-based reason behind them?

Nope, just the first two (and most glaring examples) that jumped to mind. I like the fact that Gauss Rifles, ER PPCs, LRMs and ER LLs all have different range brackets, it creates more variety and interesting ways of using them. Would I change a few? Sure, look at what I did to the HGR with the iHGR.

[Moonsword]

And this thread is locked for at least a day.  Do not start a new thread on this same set of topics.