Author Topic: Design VS Playtested performance ?  (Read 1623 times)

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
Design VS Playtested performance ?
« on: 03 January 2017, 09:49:49 »
I have designed dozens of mechs and Combat Vehicles and a handful Aerospace assets .  My results range from absolutely no better than I expected and far poorer than I expected when it came time to field them .  Has anyone designed something that performed far better than expected or is my experience the normal one ? Since this question applies to the whole Fan Designs and Rules I did not put it in any particular place on it . I also want to know if anyone sees this or does just everyone ONLY looks at the specific unit types when looking in this forum , and to get answers I have to post to them individually ?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37298
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Design VS Playtested performance ?
« Reply #1 on: 03 January 2017, 11:05:41 »
As you can see by the dates of the last posts in this section, not everyone limits themselves to the specific unit type sub-boards.

In answer to your question, to really know the performance of a design, you'd have to play it for some time (i.e., many battles; I'd lean toward hundreds).  A handful of battles won't necessarily rise above the statistical noise of the dice, and a sound design may get a bad reputation (e.g., the Blackjack in canon).  Similarly, a horrible design could get lucky and earn an undeserved good reputation.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Design VS Playtested performance ?
« Reply #2 on: 03 January 2017, 11:44:19 »
I agree with Daryk on this. You can get an idea of how you think it can perform from the design process, and you can even base it on statistical data. To get a good feel for it though you have to play test it a lot.

I have come across designs that surprised me with how well they performed, and others that were pretty underwhelming when I got around to using them.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Design VS Playtested performance ?
« Reply #3 on: 04 January 2017, 17:06:16 »
The most underwhelming stock mech I came across is the Thanatos it looked OK but just could not deliver the damage needed before it was killed. The disappointment is common the better than expected is what I want to hear about.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Design VS Playtested performance ?
« Reply #4 on: 04 January 2017, 17:59:28 »
Most of my stories along those lines are about playtesting my own designs rather than cannon ones. The one that comes to mind the most is about a 100 ton clan assault omnimech I designed. The variant I liked the most on paper had 4 Large Pulse Lasers+ a targeting computer, 4 Streak SRM 6s, and just enough heat that it wasn't over-sinked but didn't have any serious heat issues. It performed okay, but it wasn't spectacular for me, doing about as expected.

One of the other variants of this omnimech though, had a gauss rifle, LB 10-X AC, Ultra AC 10, targeting computer, and a bunch of LRMs. I thought the weapons were eclectic and the mech just didn't feel very cohesive to me, until I used it in several battles and it's performance pretty much amazed me. That design taught me a lot about the value of different systems working well together.

As far as Canon stuff goes, my favorite warships are the Kyushu, Soyal, and Night Lord. I don't think I have seen anyone give complementary reviews of the first two, but I get them do work out pretty well for myself. A lot better than people seem to think they can.

 

Register