Should the "Standard" IS Mechwarrior have better piloting skill?

[Calimehter]

Having done a bit more Battleforce lately, one thing I really like about it is not having to worry so much about Mechs falling over, and it made me realize just how often it happens in TW-scale Battletech games, and wonder whether it is happening too often?

Currently, a standard Inner Sphere Mech pilot has piloting skill 5 and Gunnery Skill 4.  With no modifiers, this leads to falling over 1 in every 4 checks with no modifiers.  This goes up dramatically when you start adding modifiers (up to 40% of the time you will fall with just a +1 mod, which is quite common) or when you have to start taking multiple checks in the same turn (or even for the same event).  Just about anytime you play a game, you will have multiple falls for each lance of Mechs on the field.

Now, these are not a green pilots we are talking about, but pilots who have likely seen some action and have had a decent amount of training and practice with their machines.

Which leads to the poll question . . . do you believe a pilot's default skill should be equal to their gunnery skill, so as to reduce the chances of falling somewhat? 
I am aware I could always just use 4/4 Mechwarriors in my games (and 3/3 for Veterans who should fall even less, etc.) if I don't like the amount of wipeouts in my own personal games. :) 

The question is more about whether the "baseline" pilot should be a bit more steady on his feet than he or she currently is.  I just want to get a feel for how the community feels about it.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I play all my games with 2/3 or better pilots.  Any higher and I feel the game gets too long and boring.

With that being said, I never understood why G/P is usually off by 1.  Because shooting is easier maybe?

[AlphaMirage]

I think MechWarriors drill more with their weapons than in maneuver. 

The base 4 of a standard MW is good enough to hit adequately at medium and short range on slower targets

At piloting 5 you can keep your feet provided you have no leg actuator damage most of the time.  The other use of it is melee attacks which with a kick you can still land one of those if both of you just walked.

I typically play with a piloting of 4 however because I prefer to play more maneuver warfare with mediums that if they lose their feet will be cut to ribbons.  My common opponent is more wall of steel so he spends his BV on assault Mechs that my lighter ones knock to the ground and curbstomp.

[Empyrus]

Default is 4/5 is just fine. Adjusting it just leads to needing issue errata, adjusting BV tables, whatever else.
Play with whatever you like, i tend to play games with 3/4 skills as starting points (and maybe locked there) to speed things up.

[AlphaMirage]

Default is 4/5 is just fine. Adjusting it just leads to needing issue errata, adjusting BV tables, whatever else.
Play with whatever you like, i tend to play games with 3/4 skills as starting points (and maybe locked there) to speed things up.

+1 to that I think beyond 3/4 the balance really breaks down.  The 2d6 curve is just not robust enough at 2/3 and below to provide meaningful challenge

[Scotty]

Every time a PSR is rolled, it's because of some extraordinary circumstance that is very far removed from being able to move a 'Mech from point A to point B.  You try to stay standing reliably while your friend with a sledgehammer takes a swing from unpredictable directions and random timing, even if you're padded enough to avoid any kind of injury (A mech certainly isn't).

[GreekFire]

I don't feel like piloting should be lowered, because then physical attacks will become to easy to land. Since physical attacks can already be major game changers, I think that might make brawlers a bit too dangerous. I do agree, though, that as the tech level progresses, 'Mechs begin to have too many PSRs to roll, and that they tend to tumble a bit too much.

IMO, a part of it will depend on whether you play introductory-level stuff or with more advanced technologies. In a 3025-era game, needing 20 points of damage for a PSR is fine considering that the number of 'Mechs that can reliable reach that number every turn without overheating is pretty limited.

But once you start going up tech levels? a 20-point PSR becomes a piece of cake for a 'Mech to reach. You start seeing Lights that can force PSRs on their own, along with some BA squads and infantry platoons. I feel like the number needed to force a PSR needs to go up with the era, but at the same time, I understand that there's no real way to implement that in a quick an easy way.

[Scotty]

The Jenner and Wolfhound are both perfectly capable of doing that in 3025 already, and focusing fire is just playing smart.  The quantites of PSRs may go up with the year, but they've always been easy to prompt.

[GreekFire]

The Jenner and Wolfhound are both perfectly capable of doing that in 3025 already

Very true. I should have written "Lights are much more often able to force PSRs on their own" in order for the argument to be understood better.

focusing fire is just playing smart.

Also true. But the key difference here is that the percentage of successful attacks from the 'Mechs combining fire gets lower as the tech level advances.

For example, take a lance of of -5S Thunderbolts, combining fire at a target 4 hexes away. For the sake of the example, all 'Mechs will want to remain heat neutral, so they'll be firing the Large Laser and two Medium Lasers for the highest potential damage at the best to-hit numbers. You have 12 chances to deal damage, and it would take 3-4 hits in order to force a PSR. So, at best, about 25% of the shots need to hit.

Now advance to 3050, and take a lance of -7M Thunderbolts. Because of double heat sinks, you have 28 chances to deal damage, and it would take 3-5 hits in order to force a PSR. So, at worst, about 17.9% of the shots need to hit. At best, 10.7%.

What this functionally means is that you end up seeing higher rates of damage, and therefore more PSRs on the table every turn. I *personally* think that the PSR part isn't super fun, because I find that Battletech is at its best when units are able to remain mobile (and w/ conscious pilots) for longer periods of the game.

[Empyrus]

Perhaps the PSR from damage should be simply a bit easier? Would be very simple to implement. And one could always apply the TacOps optional rules regarding damage-induced PSRs on top of this change.

[Sabelkatten]

Nitpick: TN5 is 83% chance of success, TN6 is 72%.

Isn't there an optional rule that heavier mechs are harder to knock down with damage? The problem really isn't light mechs getting knocked down (20+ points per round means there won't BE a light mech for very many rounds!). But with the Thunderbolts mentioned above you can count on them falling way to often...

[Scotty]

There's a TacOps rule that gives Lights +1, Mediums +0, Heavies -1, and Assaults -2 to being knocked over by damage.

[AlphaMirage]

There's a TacOps rule that gives Lights +1, Mediums +0, Heavies -1, and Assaults -2 to being knocked over by damage.

Id actually rather it be inverted making lights and mediums have a mobility advantage much like the other optional rule that gives lights and mediums more accurate physicals.

Assaults should be harder to control and prone to falling due to mass unless the pilot is particularly good.  Otherwise you just give assaults more advantages and it makes for a boring game

[Colt Ward]

Thought that was just part of the rule and it was combined with +1 for each 20 damage for the PSR.  Take 62 points of damage, +3 & if its a assault hit, -2 for the weight= brings it back to a +1.

I think Scotty has the right of it . . . when I trained to drive a APC, I drove it off & on road while getting theory of how to drive on loose sand & ice . . . but they were rare occurances.  Drove once or twice in the snow (head out of the hatch during a blow in near white out was fun) but so slowly I do not know we were slipping on any ice- also at the front of the convoy so no one had compacted it.  Going fast on loose sand caused it to shake & waddle at high speed (60 mph+ . . . maybe over 70) because it magnified the slight differences in track tension to give it a shimmy forward.  Never practiced those conditions, had all sorts of theory (IIRC tracks turn differently in a skid than a car- been too long) but never practiced . . .

How often does a IS mechwarrior drive their mech at full speed getting wailed on?  Clan warriors get a 4 piloting because they DO get hammered at incoming live fire exercises for several years of training.

[Retry]

Id actually rather it be inverted making lights and mediums have a mobility advantage much like the other optional rule that gives lights and mediums more accurate physicals.

Id actually rather it be inverted making lights and mediums have a mobility advantage much like the other optional rule that gives lights and mediums more accurate physicals.

It's based on conservation of momentum.  A quarter-ton hypersonic Heavy Gauss projectile is going to do a whole lot more boat-rocking if that shell hits a 20-ton Flea than it will if it hits a 100-ton Atlas, or even a 135-ton Ares.  The mobility advantage would be that the Flea should be swift enough to avoid said situations in the first place.

I can't imagine it'd help lights much if the bonuses were inverted.  A light that takes 20+ damage per turn at any frequency is best described as "dead".

I find that bonus vital when using the other TacOps PSR rule for damage over +20.  Heavies and Assaults are rather slow and usually heavily armored, so it's not too difficult to get 60+ damage on at least one Assault-class 'mech every turn.  Without it, they'd be on their bum more than half the time, invert it and you probably shouldn't ever take those Assaults out of fixed firing positions.

[Daryk]

3/3 has been trivial to achieve with a starting character since 2nd edition.  And it wasn't terribly hard in 1st, either.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I was accidently vote for no, but I do think that 4/4 would be more reasonable. Why the skills are have the different starting line? Also piloting is cheaper than gunnery, but it starts with lower grade which is nonsense.

[Col Toda]

Falling down is part of the game .  In campaigns it incentivizes getting better piloting before  getter better gunnery  .  Some go Quad mech route to get a quick -2 on piloting.  Once designed  a quad mech with Enhanced acttuators and pulse lasers so the Green 6 /5 Social General operated at 2 / 3 . In a campaign  my unit eventually ended up Regimental  size but generally  had each of the Battalion's on a different  contract . One of them was the training  one with regular pilots  in the lowest risk assignments . The others were veteran skill levels  . Elites were too expensive to keep.  Regular  pilots were so bad that even when they  win the damage  sustained was so high it was still a loss leader ..  The veteran  battalion more successful missions paid and gave time for the regulars to become veterans.  Same idea behind minor league baseball  . They get good enough they are promoted to the majors. 

[Calimehter]

Nitpick: TN5 is 83% chance of success, TN6 is 72%

No, good catch, I accidentally ran the numbers for the 20+ damage threshold in my head (since its one of the most common ones) and forgot that I added the modifier already when I was writing the first post.

How often does a IS mechwarrior drive their mech at full speed getting wailed on?  Clan warriors get a 4 piloting because they DO get hammered at incoming live fire exercises for several years of training.

Given the large amount of piloting checks and falling down that go on in the average game, I would assume a non-green pilot *has* had some experience with that exact thing. :)  Clanners and Veteran pilots would go to 3/3 (and 2/2 for elites and so on) if regular pilots went to 4/4, to represent their greater experience and/or more rigorous training.

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

I guess it is all a matter of taste in the end, and is easy enough to implement (thanks to the BV pilot upgrade formula) if I want.  I don't mind having falling Mechs in games and would still like to see it happen (especially if legs are getting blown off or heavily damaged with crits), I just feel like the average post-battle video analysis should look less like a Keystone Kops routine than it does now, especially if you are adding any sort of pavement or water to the "typical" set of checks from kicks and focus firing.

I wonder if some enterprising Inner Sphere tri-vid broadcaster hasn't come up with the idea to put together a clip show of Mech falls along the lines of 'America's Funniest Home Videos'.  I'm sure it would be a ratings hit, and you would never run out of material.  ;D

[Iceweb]

I wonder if some enterprising Inner Sphere tri-vid broadcaster hasn't come up with the idea to put together a clip show of Mech falls along the lines of 'America's Funniest Home Videos'.  I'm sure it would be a ratings hit, and you would never run out of material.  ;D

I think they did try to make a show, but they ended up being unable to source Yakety Sax for the show, and the producer canceled the show in disgust.   

[bobthecoward]

There are two elements here. From a game design perspective, I have no idea. There is some ideal balance of intentional effort to knock down versus defensive action that ideally maximizes fun...but I don't know what that is.

From an in world perspective, falling is not some unfortunate circumstance....the enemy is trying to knock you over. It is like asking if wide receivers get tackled too much because it causes the game to stop and everyone has to reset.

[GreekFire]

From an in world perspective, falling is not some unfortunate circumstance....the enemy is trying to knock you over. It is like asking if wide receivers get tackled too much because it causes the game to stop and everyone has to reset.

Not entirely a good comparison. Would be better to compare it to players falling after getting checked in hockey.

Then the in-game comparison would be "does this installment of hockeygame2020 have players fall to often after getting checked?" Which is something a bit more subjective when applied to BattleTech, since there's no reality to draw off of. So in that sort of situation, the flow of the game itself ends up being the most important factor.

[bobthecoward]

So in that sort of situation, the flow of the game itself ends up being the most important factor.

For me it is the least important factor.

[GreekFire]

Let me rephrase. Since the in-universe rate of falling isn't ever examined in depth, the in-game rate of falling can potentially be slightly reduced or raised if it's required to make the game better - with no in-universe consequences.

[bobthecoward]

Let me rephrase. Since the in-universe rate of falling isn't ever examined in depth, the in-game rate of falling can potentially be slightly reduced or raised if it's required to make the game better - with no in-universe consequences.

I vociferously disagree.

ETA: but I'm a cranky old person. So, don't read too much into my reply.

[GreekFire]

That's OK, we're allowed to have different viewpoints. Could I hear your opinion on why you disagree?

[bobthecoward]

That's OK, we're allowed to have different viewpoints. Could I hear your opinion on why you disagree?

I derive pleasure from putting myself through a miserable gaming experience if I feel verisimilitude is preserved. Verisimilitude above all...and if you can't have verisimilitude then give up rather than value any other second principle.

And now that you have told me that it can't be reasoned out, I'm going to stop playing battlech again for awhile, I was away for over a year and came back this week, until I can resolve this conflict.

I'm pretty crazy, so I recommend not asking further.

[Retry]

I vociferously disagree.

Precisely what would be the in-universe consequence of a slight increase or decrease in the rate of falling for Battlemechs?  Maybe a few battles between Lances gets turned on its head, and there's a different winner in this week's Solaris Arena Duel.  But the Star League will still fall, the Republic of the Sphere will still rise (and fall), and the Clans will still be a collection of nutty warrior cultures no matter how frequently Mechwarriors fall down.

I'm genuinely struggling to think of any in-universe major events that would shift unless you assume the Butterfly Effect is in full force, in which case it's not so much that changing the rate of falling for Battlemechs would cause a shift in history as much as it's changing anything would change everything in the long run.

[bobthecoward]

Precisely what would be the in-universe consequence of a slight increase or decrease in the rate of falling for Battlemechs? 

That occuring makes me sick just thinking about it.

[Retry]

That occuring makes me sick just thinking about it.

That sounds like an out-of-universe problem to me.