Author Topic: Silly Comparisons - is there such a thing as an over-optimized design?  (Read 24686 times)

deathfrombeyond

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1267
  • The fuel that powers the Successor States
My suggestion for those that dislike "hamstrung" designs so very much? Who's forcing you to keep using them? Really, I'm curious.

I suppose you might have a point if you were assigned them via a RAT, but if one wants to eliminate the chances of "having" to field "hamstrung" forces, I wouldn't even agree to a RAT in the first place.

I mean, it's the same thing regarding canon vs. custom. If canon players don't like the cheese of customs, make it very clear beforehand that they would prefer if customs weren't fielded. If custom players don't like being constricted by canon designs, they should make it very clear beforehand that they would like the ability to field their own customs.
« Last Edit: 20 December 2011, 13:09:40 by deathfrombeyond »
If House Kurita is a punching bag, at least it's the weeble-wobble type that punches back. House Liao's like a speed bag that just hangs there and takes it. - Neko Bijin

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
No. We don't. Not anymore.

What happened?
Col. Hengist likes fielding Marians..... and trust me, I've been on the receiving end of a LOT of rocket spam.

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

bakija

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 705
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.

Well, except that there is a theoretical balance--when using BV, Workmechs are vastly cheaper than Battlemechs--a Workmech absorbs damage, which is worth something, and can make physical attacks, which is worth something, but with no weapons and a Workmech design, it is going to be incredibly cheap, BV wise.

That, and Workmechs aren't designed for fighting. As they have no weapons (generally speaking, except for improvised ones). If Workmechs are in a situation where they have to fight Battlemechs, they are they by design (in terms of game play)--it is a scenario or something has gone wrong in a campaign or whatever. No one is going to bring Workmechs to a fair fight game. As they aren't designed for that.

Quote
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.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point is simply that a lot of mechs are just arbitrarily bad, for no reason other than arbitrariness. Which is why people tend to look at them and say "Man. That mech is bad. While this mech is so much better in comparison." Due to arbitrary design decisions. That the rules don't support sensically.

The most obvious example of "arbitrary design decisions" is the 3025 Marauder that I reference above. It has a ton of AC5 ammo in an completely empty torso location, such that if it takes any crits at all in that torso location, it explodes and is instantly dead. And there is no logical reason, at all, in a rules sense, that this is necessary. That ammo could be in the same torso as the AC5, making it 80% less likely to instantly kill you. It could be surrounded by a few spare heat sinks, also protecting it. The rules make either of these completely obvious, no brainer design decisions (and I'm not even talking about "why have an AC5 in the first place..." here). And yet the mech, as presented, doesn't do anything to protect the ammo. Is the Maurauder such an awesome killer mech that it needs an arbitrary disadvantage like this to keep it in balance? Hardly--it already has significant heat problems and some armor issues. Giving it the unprotected ammo time bomb is just capricious design that there is no logical reason for, and nothing in the rules supports doing even remotely. This is the sort of thing that makes some mechs seem bad compared to other mechs that don't suffer from such arbitrary flaws.

If the game rules *supported* these flaws somehow, then sure, give mechs flaws; if you got a big BV savings by having an unprotected ammo bomb, then sure, risk the unprotected ammo bomb. Or if you got a weight discount on unprotected ammo, or whatever, then these things would be fine (and the issue here is not specifically ammo--the same thing could be said about, say, the 3050 Panther with an ERPPC and SHS. Or whatever). But as it is, they are just arbitrary bad design. Which makes the not arbitrarily badly designed mechs seem that much better in comparison. There is no logic as to why some mechs are The Vindicator (which is a mech that is virtually perfectly designed from the dawn of the game) and others are the Marauder (which seems specifically designed to accidentally blow up more often than not). Which is what makes folks react to super good mechs for being super good and super bad ones for being super bad (and not the James Brown super bad, just the regular kind).

deathfrombeyond

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1267
  • The fuel that powers the Successor States
See the most recent post I made: Who keeps on forcing people to use "hamstrung" designs? I'm curious.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point is simply that a lot of mechs are just arbitrarily bad, for no reason other than arbitrariness. Which is why people tend to look at them and say "Man. That mech is bad. While this mech is so much better in comparison." Due to arbitrary design decisions. That the rules don't support sensically.

My point is that whatever metric one uses to determine a "good" design decision from a "hamstrung" one is similarly arbitrary.

Incidentally, deciding to balance with BV is also an arbitrary choice, a bad choice if one doesn't take anything else into account. One could simply choose to not use BV as a balancing metric because it doesn't take into account bad design choices, right? Just as much as someone can CHOOSE to field a force that is totally outmatched by the opposition.

Seriously, if there are some canon designs that are annoying to use compared to others, don't use the annoying ones.
If House Kurita is a punching bag, at least it's the weeble-wobble type that punches back. House Liao's like a speed bag that just hangs there and takes it. - Neko Bijin

Col.Hengist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9189
  • Konrad ' Hengist " Littman Highlander 732b
What happened?
Col. Hengist likes fielding Marians..... and trust me, I've been on the receiving end of a LOT of rocket spam.

Nahuris

 He means we aren't getting anything new and on the contrary, if you compare the MUL from 6 months ago to today we have lost designs... :-\
Lyran Commonwealth,6th Donegal Guards-Nightstar
Marian Hegemony, II Legio-Cataphract
Clan Hell's Horses, Gamma Galaxy-Summoner
Clan Grinch goat- gamma goat.

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Well, except that there is a theoretical balance--when using BV, Workmechs are vastly cheaper than Battlemechs--a Workmech absorbs damage, which is worth something, and can make physical attacks, which is worth something, but with no weapons and a Workmech design, it is going to be incredibly cheap, BV wise.

That, and Workmechs aren't designed for fighting. As they have no weapons (generally speaking, except for improvised ones). If Workmechs are in a situation where they have to fight Battlemechs, they are they by design (in terms of game play)--it is a scenario or something has gone wrong in a campaign or whatever. No one is going to bring Workmechs to a fair fight game. As they aren't designed for that.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point is simply that a lot of mechs are just arbitrarily bad, for no reason other than arbitrariness. Which is why people tend to look at them and say "Man. That mech is bad. While this mech is so much better in comparison." Due to arbitrary design decisions. That the rules don't support sensically.

The most obvious example of "arbitrary design decisions" is the 3025 Marauder that I reference above. It has a ton of AC5 ammo in an completely empty torso location, such that if it takes any crits at all in that torso location, it explodes and is instantly dead. And there is no logical reason, at all, in a rules sense, that this is necessary. That ammo could be in the same torso as the AC5, making it 80% less likely to instantly kill you. It could be surrounded by a few spare heat sinks, also protecting it. The rules make either of these completely obvious, no brainer design decisions (and I'm not even talking about "why have an AC5 in the first place..." here). And yet the mech, as presented, doesn't do anything to protect the ammo. Is the Maurauder such an awesome killer mech that it needs an arbitrary disadvantage like this to keep it in balance? Hardly--it already has significant heat problems and some armor issues. Giving it the unprotected ammo time bomb is just capricious design that there is no logical reason for, and nothing in the rules supports doing even remotely. This is the sort of thing that makes some mechs seem bad compared to other mechs that don't suffer from such arbitrary flaws.

If the game rules *supported* these flaws somehow, then sure, give mechs flaws; if you got a big BV savings by having an unprotected ammo bomb, then sure, risk the unprotected ammo bomb. Or if you got a weight discount on unprotected ammo, or whatever, then these things would be fine (and the issue here is not specifically ammo--the same thing could be said about, say, the 3050 Panther with an ERPPC and SHS. Or whatever). But as it is, they are just arbitrary bad design. Which makes the not arbitrarily badly designed mechs seem that much better in comparison. There is no logic as to why some mechs are The Vindicator (which is a mech that is virtually perfectly designed from the dawn of the game) and others are the Marauder (which seems specifically designed to accidentally blow up more often than not). Which is what makes folks react to super good mechs for being super good and super bad ones for being super bad (and not the James Brown super bad, just the regular kind).

Unfortunately, the Marauder is the victim of a rules change......
Back when battletech first started, all heat sinks were allocated, including the 10 free that came with the engine, and there were heat sinks protecting the ammo. Then, the rule about the 10 free ones was introduced..... and then they created the rule about the engine rating divided by 25... and so on and so forth.
It didn't start as a time bomb... the rule that improved crit allocation turned it into one.

I remember the original sheet from way way back, where there were heat sinks in that torso.... and I remember those heat sinks getting critted.... and being happy that it wasn't the ammo.

As stated earlier in this thread .... the game has gone through changes. Some designs were built using the image to stats method ... where the stats were designed to fit the artwork, and some were designed with the concept of the C-bill being the guide... and some were designed by the need or duty that they were expected to do..... as defined by someone's idea of the way certain things should work... hence the Urbanmech.

That's why I don't feel any design is so bad as to be un-useable, nor so powerful as to be unbeatable. Some are tougher than others, or better at certain roles... but as long as the design is within the construction rules, then what does it matter if some writer arbitrarily designs it, or a home player.... they're equal in how they relate to the system and rules. Again, the Hellstar comes to mind, as does a number of other designs down through the game... There are some very efficient designs in play --- not just the Hellstar, but the Nightstar comes to mind --- with 56 shots per Gauss Rifle, and enough heatsinks to hide in a forest fire and still fight.... it can do what the Hellstar cannot --- it can giggle all day at infernos, it can use it's medium pulse lasers on infantry, and it can still lay out 3 head-cap shots a round, matching the Hellstar for range... with 11 heat capacity to spare ----- yeah, it's worried about inferno missiles..... really. It only has one less shot per round, but does equivelent damage close in with the 2 medium pulse lasers and the small laser...

That's why I point out that some of the comparisons are silly, though.... because some of these comparisons cross era lines, some cross tech lines, and some cross lines from one designer to another.... and neither of those designers used the same concept guidlines. Personally, I think that the game is better for it... it sure beats all of us having to use the same mech, just because it's the only one designed.

Nahuris


"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
He means we aren't getting anything new and on the contrary, if you compare the MUL from 6 months ago to today we have lost designs... :-\

That sucks ..... I was starting to like the way that the Periphery was getting into the action.... I've always thought that TPTB should have done more with those realms.....

More factions means more plot lines, and more fun to go around..... I know I'm sick of Davion vs Asian battles.

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Col.Hengist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9189
  • Konrad ' Hengist " Littman Highlander 732b
Same...btw, the nightstar only has 2 headcappers, the IS erppc only does 10. Slipped your mind probably. Like me, old age and senility  ;)
Lyran Commonwealth,6th Donegal Guards-Nightstar
Marian Hegemony, II Legio-Cataphract
Clan Hell's Horses, Gamma Galaxy-Summoner
Clan Grinch goat- gamma goat.

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Same...btw, the nightstar only has 2 headcappers, the IS erppc only does 10. Slipped your mind probably. Like me, old age and senility  ;)

Senilty ..... yeah, that and I work for a wholesale supplier who gets over 45% of our business in the month of December, alone.
I cannot wait until this month is over......

However, the Nightstar still giggles at infernos.


Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

bakija

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 705
See the most recent post I made: Who keeps on forcing people to use "hamstrung" designs? I'm curious.

Who is talking about being forced to use anything?

This thread seems to be wondering about why some people view certain mechs as "over-optimized", and part of that goes back to the fact that many of the cannon designs are deeply "under-optimized" for no good reason.

Quote
My point is that whatever metric one uses to determine a "good" design decision from a "hamstrung" one is similarly arbitrary.

Not so much. Some design decisions are objectively just a bad idea, based on the rules of the game. There is nothing at all arbitrary about calling putting a single ton of ammo in an otherwise completely empty torso location a bad design decision. Or that putting an ERPPC on a mech that could use DHS yet isn't is a great plan. These aren't an arbitrary metric. They are decisions based on the metric set by the rules of the game.

Quote
Seriously, if there are some canon designs that are annoying to use compared to others, don't use the annoying ones.

No one is here looking for a solution to anything. It is a discussion about hypothetical aspects of the game.

bakija

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 705
It didn't start as a time bomb... the rule that improved crit allocation turned it into one.

And yet there was nothing at all preventing them from moving the ammo when they tweaked the rules. It isn't like the location of the Maurauder's ammo is some sort of sacrosanct bit of history--you tweak the rules, and then you reprint the mech with the ammo in the same torso location as the AC or whatever. Or allocate some of the non vanishing heat sinks in with the ammo. These are easy things to do and have no wide scale impact on the game.

Quote
That's why I don't feel any design is so bad as to be un-useable, nor so powerful as to be unbeatable.

All mechs are useful for *something*. The issue is, most of the time "Is this mech worth using instead of some other one that is better designed?"

deathfrombeyond

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1267
  • The fuel that powers the Successor States
Who is talking about being forced to use anything?

This thread seems to be wondering about why some people view certain mechs as "over-optimized", and part of that goes back to the fact that many of the cannon designs are deeply "under-optimized" for no good reason.

Not so much. Some design decisions are objectively just a bad idea, based on the rules of the game. There is nothing at all arbitrary about calling putting a single ton of ammo in an otherwise completely empty torso location a bad design decision. Or that putting an ERPPC on a mech that could use DHS yet isn't is a great plan. These aren't an arbitrary metric. They are decisions based on the metric set by the rules of the game.

No one is here looking for a solution to anything. It is a discussion about hypothetical aspects of the game.

I guess I'm going to have to disagree about whether it's really more of a complain fest or not, and opt out. Best of luck, guys.
If House Kurita is a punching bag, at least it's the weeble-wobble type that punches back. House Liao's like a speed bag that just hangs there and takes it. - Neko Bijin

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10426
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Unfortunately, the Marauder is the victim of a rules change......
Back when battletech first started, all heat sinks were allocated, including the 10 free that came with the engine, and there were heat sinks protecting the ammo.

Huh?
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Interestingly enough, one of the first things I did with the Marauder was look at that torso and say, "No."

Before my voice cracked, when I'd been playing Battletech for less than a year, I knew it was a bad idea.

That's why on my ancient record sheets that ammo bin is scratched out and a new one is put in just below the AC/5; that is, of course, before I discovered the MAD-3D and never looked back.


My main argument against using 'fluff' as a justification for bad 'Mech design is simple: These machines have been around for centuries. The engineers have a HUGE pool of knowledge to draw on for what works and what don't. It makes sense for SOME designs to be rushed without much testing or thought, that's what prototypes are for, and in the case of the Hunchback cited above apparently resulted in the 6N (4 tons of ammo for an AC/20 is all right by me in a CASE 'Mech) - sometimes bad designs get used on the battlefield...

But their engineers should have known that wasn't enough ammo. Hell, we know, and we've only been 'engineering' 'Mech designs for 20-odd years, not 500+.

Hell, it makes no sense for something like, say, the Jagermech to still be used as a JM6-S, when the JM6-A is so much better than it at its own job of being an AA platform that over the centuries any remaining JM6-Ss would have converted to -As. That's part of the advantage of the 'Mech system according to the fluff, that refits can be made fairly fast and with little loss of efficiency. That's why the OmniMech is the ultimate evolution of the BattleMech - it's simply a plug-and-play version of the same idea.


That's why I shelled out for the TRO 3050 upgrade; it actually has commonsense upgrades in there as well as the original, stupid ones.

Belisarius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
These machines have been around for centuries. The engineers have a HUGE pool of knowledge to draw on for what works and what don't. It makes sense for SOME designs to be rushed without much testing or thought, that's what prototypes are for, and in the case of the Hunchback cited above apparently resulted in the 6N (4 tons of ammo for an AC/20 is all right by me in a CASE 'Mech) - sometimes bad designs get used on the battlefield...

But their engineers should have known that wasn't enough ammo. Hell, we know, and we've only been 'engineering' 'Mech designs for 20-odd years, not 500+.

The point is that the designs haven't 'actually' been around for centuries. How many years of experience did the people who published TRO3050 have with playing in an environment that included Clantech and advanced IS tech? My guess is few to none. When you look at the designs, even the crappy ones, as if they'd been wargamed a few times in one on one matches, they start to make a lot more sense. They just didn't have the playing experience with the technology to know that five rounds was totally insufficient. Never mind the role that the machine was intended for (which may not have been the way we now want to use the Hunchback - it looks a lot more like a city barrage vehicle like the old Enforcer - which only had one ton of AC10 rds).

Twenty years of experience in an environment with these machines informs our decisions about what makes sense. Twenty years ago, those same machines looked remarkable (if only for a few minutes) compared to their unupgraded cousins.

mutantmagnet

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 708
Unfortunately, the Marauder is the victim of a rules change......
Back when battletech first started, all heat sinks were allocated, including the 10 free that came with the engine, and there were heat sinks protecting the ammo. Then, the rule about the 10 free ones was introduced..... and then they created the rule about the engine rating divided by 25... and so on and so forth.
It didn't start as a time bomb... the rule that improved crit allocation turned it into one.

I remember the original sheet from way way back, where there were heat sinks in that torso.... and I remember those heat sinks getting critted.... and being happy that it wasn't the ammo.


Well this has changed my opinion on how I thought FASA was designing certain mechs on purpose.

Still there is one thing I don't like about their design decisions. They were grossly lacking in variety in 3025 designs.

The classic comparison of the missile boat bear this out.

Dervish, Trebuchet, Catapault, Archer, longbow, etc all have their strengths and weaknesses that caters to different playstyles.

I would've loved to see a mech that used an AC 20 that moved 5/8 or move 3/5 and jumped (finally got this decades later)

House Davie Merc

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1261
Unfortunately, the Marauder is the victim of a rules change......
Back when battletech first started, all heat sinks were allocated, including the 10 free that came with the engine, and there were heat sinks protecting the ammo. Then, the rule about the 10 free ones was introduced..... and then they created the rule about the engine rating divided by 25... and so on and so forth.
It didn't start as a time bomb... the rule that improved crit allocation turned it into one.

I remember the original sheet from way way back, where there were heat sinks in that torso.... and I remember those heat sinks getting critted.... and being happy that it wasn't the ammo.

Nahuris
I definately remember that there were some differences from the original game and IIRC
heat sinks were one of them but I honestly don't remember if all 10 were allocated or
just more of them .
I also remember that jump jets were done differently as well making (IIRC)
the Super Wasp no longer possible . Perhaps a Griffin variant as well ?

Also , a Goliath with more items in the center torso then is now legal rings a bell for some reason but
I don't remember if a 4 legger was in the original set or if it was from somewhere else .

MG ammo couldn't be in half tons either .

I do wish some of those early designs were reconfigured to fit rule changes in a better way but
that was a LONG time ago .

Greywind

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 855
Everybody loves the Awesome.
No I don't.

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Huh?

Waaaay back in the battledroid rules --- all heat sinks were allocated.
I remember playing a Chameleon and after a couple of SRM barrages, being down to 3 remaining heat sinks....LOL

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Well this has changed my opinion on how I thought FASA was designing certain mechs on purpose.

Still there is one thing I don't like about their design decisions. They were grossly lacking in variety in 3025 designs.

The classic comparison of the missile boat bear this out.

Dervish, Trebuchet, Catapault, Archer, longbow, etc all have their strengths and weaknesses that caters to different playstyles.

I would've loved to see a mech that used an AC 20 that moved 5/8 or move 3/5 and jumped (finally got this decades later)


Yeah....

Some of the changes over time have both improved the game, and also cost some things ----- If I remember right (and I wish my battletech stuff had not gotten stolen, because I had the original books) but the Battlemaster used to have 2 SRM6's, but didn't pay the tonnage for a cockpit, as it didn't have a separate "head" just the dome on top ---- then they decided it had to have the head, so they traded out one SRM6 --- but that was why it had 2 tons of ammo for it in the TRO.

A lot of this was from before the first TRO3025 --- the game was still in construction, and people were still learning how to play.

There is another thing to consider when you see bad placement of items ---- such as the mentioned Marauder ammo ---- that's actually a later thing too.

Again, if my senile brain remembers correctly...... it was about the time that the first 3025 TRO was printed, that the engine mounted heat sinks became a rule.  At that time, the older sheets more or less became defunct, but the TRO listed the ammo in the Left Torso ----- since, at that time, we were still using blank record sheets, and filling them in based off of the TRO, and at that time, they did not list Heat Sink Locations.... players were free to crit pack them to protect ammo. This is where the Marauder got a lot of it's feared reputation.
When the first "official" record sheets were printed, the big tactic on the board was using level 1 water, and having heat sinks in the legs for the extra 4 heat dispersion, as well as the bonus for partial cover...... so a lot of designs were geared around that idea, as it made "tactical" sense for one of the more commonly used tactics. Also, again, at that time, a lot of damage was in 5 point hits..... so the odds of blasting through the left torso and smacking the ammo wasn't quite as bad a risk as it is now. It was assumed that you would use a majority of your ammo by then.

The game has evolved a LOT since those early days of mechs circling each other at a range of 6, and missing half the time......

Gunnery and piloting both were 4+ then...... there were no targeting computers, pulse lasers, LBX cannons, etc. There was nothing that improved your chance to hit. That's why Natasha Kerensky was so dangerous....... she had a 3+ gunnery.....

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Kos

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 261
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.

Headcappers can be painful but a one-in-thirty-six chance of hitting the head is not really statistically ruling the battlefield.  Just don't give your opponent thirty-six opportunities to blow your head off in the process of downing them!

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
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.

Yes, that's one of the two perspectives you acknowledged earlier. I'm saying that FASA, at least originally, held a third perspective: the oldest philosophy of design was to choose mobility, durability and damage first, then fiddle with weapon types and heatsinks to scale firepower down to the desired level. Tonnage is basically an accident that happens afterwards. Like C-Bills (I don't know if you omitted them intentionally), tonnage is more an in-game player resource than a metagame point balance, at best halfway between pointcost and fluff.

How do you reconcile the differences between Tech Bases -- industrial, introductory, lostech, newtech, clantech -- with the desire to balance by tonnage? Clan machines use standard engines and such, lostech 'Mechs use endo steel with LRMs, and so on. Why excuse a WorkMech as being suited to campaign play or set-piece scenarios yet not the 3050 Panther? From the perspective of someone designing stats-first/tonnage-last, the distinctions between Tech bases are as arbitrary and fluff-based as the distinctions within Tech Bases.

You're also discounting the fluff's value as a measuring stick in itself, even though (at least in theory) a TRO's descriptive text tells you when a "heavy scout" would be equivalent to another "heavy scout," or "medium fire support" would be equivalent to other "medium fire support."

Quote
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.

Things like this can be done to balance a 'Mech against specific other opponents from the same set, or to place it more carefully along the continuum from "best 'Mech for this role" to "worst 'Mech for this role." (Though, as often as not, these things tend to be either typos or (as Nahuris said) relics of previous rulesets rather than intentional design decisions.)

Consider that a game designer wants 'Mechs to last only until the endgame, while players win by having 'Mechs survive the endgame. What's "good" for a player isn't "good" for game design -- maximized armor drags things out, y'know? "Arbitrary hamstringing" gives the designer tangible control over (or reflects an estimate of) the length of the game.

Quote
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.

If you're saying that a 'Mech can be under or over optimized relative to its Battle Value, tonnage, heatsinks, jump capacity, camouflage, or any other value associated with the 'Mech, well, I don't think anyone will disagree. But why should tonnage be as reliable as Battle Value?

BV and tonnage are nearly opposite in what they do for a player. BV is a meta-game resource devoted solely to balancing your initial selection, while tonnage is an in-game resource for manipulating 'Mechs you already have. Manipulating 'Mechs you already have (via transport, repairs, hot-rodding, or however else) is generally regarded as a core element of traditional BattleTech play, and is not especially compatible with TROs filled with arbitrarily "good" designs.

You can design 'Mechs so that tonnage more accurately reflects their meta-game value (and this gets easier to do the lower you set your average value-per-ton), but you'd be better off designing every 'Mech to match a consistent meta-value-to-armor-point ratio.

My main argument against using 'fluff' as a justification for bad 'Mech design is simple: These machines have been around for centuries. The engineers have a HUGE pool of knowledge to draw on for what works and what don't.

You can't claim a huge pool of fluff experience and then go and ignore a correspondingly huge array of fluff obstacles. Those fictitious engineers operate under a helluva a lot more restrictions than players do. (Heck, the writers used to operate under more design restrictions than ever got published.)

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.

Or they were waiting for it to stop feeling redundant with the Warhawk.
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Headcappers can be painful but a one-in-thirty-six chance of hitting the head is not really statistically ruling the battlefield.  Just don't give your opponent thirty-six opportunities to blow your head off in the process of downing them!

Headcaps suck --- I was in a tournament once ---- heavy mech free for all ---- and due to randomly rolled starting positions, my Catapult was put in a box canyon, 3 inches in front of an Axeman. There was one way out, and so we both kind of looked at each other, and started heading for the exit. We didn't expect to have to worry about fire, as the rule was that our weapons would not be activated until certain point .... basically the Ref rolled a D6, + the turn number minus 1, and once he had a total of 6, weapons went live.... and the roll was made at fire phase.... so on turn one, weapons would activate on a 6, on turn 2 it would be 5+, on 3 it would be 4+ and so on.... Physical attacks were locked out as well, until weapons went live.... so, figuring I had at least a turn to get out of the canyon, and with all the cliffs around me being level 5+, and therefor too high to jump over.... I ran for the exit, as did the Axeman. Due to initiative, I had to move first, so we ended movement with him being 2 inches behind me.... and the ref rolls a 6. You guessed it, AC/20 to the Head.....
The ref offered to let me start with another mech, or in another location, as we two had been the only ones to roll our drop into the same spot.... but fair is fair. I congratulated my opponent, and stayed and helped ref the rest of the game.

It happens..... I know the clan player I mentioned in the earlier in the Charger Rush battle was probably unhappy with the 16 point hits on the punch table.... and yes, both his Daishi and Masakari died due to I-beams forcibly introduced to his pilots..... Oddly enough, his Vulture pilot managed to actually survive the initial 8 hex charge, the several I-beam hits, but finally went down to the Urbanmechs shooting him in the back.

The fact is, though, that head hits and double one criticals are a part of the game --- The only difference between the Hellstar, and either the 3025 Awesome, or Annihilator is that the older designs had to make a crit roll to kill the pilot on most mechs, if they got a head hit..... even the original Panther can headcap --- I've seen it done where they get a head hit, go one internal, and then box car the crit roll.

I've even had a blackjack pull it off once.... early in a battle, one enemy Battlemaster took a head hit from a Rifleman ---- I later plinked it with the AC/2, got the head hit, and box carred my crit roll..... does this make the Blackjack an Uber mech that should be limited? Being rather fond of the Blackjack, I've seen more than my share of double one criticals.... including taking out Warhammers and Marauders, because I found the ammo bins.....

The point is, Battletech has so very many variables that trying to claim that this design is hamstrung, while that design is not... is a moot point.
I know that the 3025 Charger is considered a very poor mech.... and yet, it can be frightening... especially if it can manage 8 hexes in a straight line ending with you. A 64 point charge sucks, no matter what mech you receive it in.
Same as fighting that same mech if it can get a club..... which means that forest terrain is a real danger, as the rules allow mechs to grab trees as one shot clubs.

So, yes, mechs like the Masakari, Hellstar, Cygnus 3, etc. are nasty. Yes, they have headcappers.... but so does every mech armed with a 10 point or more weapon--- they can potentially head hit, get an 8 or higher roll, and then get location 3 --- dead pilots make dead mechs. However, what if the battle is in heavy built up terrain, such as canyons, heavy forest, or cities.... which then is more dangerous, a Hellstar, or the Hunchback IIc?

If you consistently lose using the same tactics against the same opponent.... is it your opponent at fault? Or is it the inflexible tactics? The phrase I have seen tossed around, about the Hellstar, is that it is 4 "I win" buttons, and all you have to do is keep mashing them..... Ok.... but what about the Annihilator with the 4 LBX cannons? It's the same thing... as is the Awesome with the 4 PPC's.... and so on. If you keep hitting your target, sooner or later, you win.....whether it's clan PPC's or machine guns...... It may take a little longer with machine guns, but dead is dead.... I know, I HAVE had I.S. assault mechs pulled down by a star of Piranha. Worse, the pilot had fought clan before, and knew Zel... he just had never faced Diamond Sharks.

This is why I consider a lot of the comparisons between mechs to be a bit silly..... people want to say that customs are wrong.... when really, they are just different. What is the Nova Prime? It's nothing more than medium laser spam... no different than the Kimodo. To be honest, now that I have managed to get together a lot of the record sheet books.... it's becoming more and more apparent that there isn't anything that can really be custom designed that doesn't already have a counterpart in some variant listed in a book..... which means that instead of the player spending a half an hour putting together a mech.... he'll spend money, to get record sheet books, and then spend a couple of hours going over all the variants, and in the end, still have that custom design he wants for your canon only game.... it might be a different frame, or require that he purchase a new fig, if he doesn't just proxy...... but every idea that can be customed can also be found in a variant somewhere.

Nahuris



"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

bakija

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 705
Tonnage is basically an accident that happens afterwards.

For a long time in this game, tonnage was the only balance point that there was. And it was, on average, reasonably successful. On average, a 55 ton mech was about as good as any other 55 ton mech. Yes, it was far from a perfect system, but it worked ok, early in the development of the game.

Quote
Like C-Bills (I don't know if you omitted them intentionally),

I omitted c-bills as I have only limited experience with c-bills as a balancing mechanism, and I have no idea if they are remotely reasonable (i.e. do more effective guns always cost more than less effective guns?) as a balance mechanism.

Quote
tonnage is more an in-game player resource than a metagame point balance, at best halfway between pointcost and fluff.

That doesn't seem to be how the game designers envisioned tonnage, at least for the first 5-10 years of the game existing. I'd never claim that currently, tonnage works as a good balancing point (although again, if you are using similar tech levels, on average, tonnage works out as a reasonable balancing point, especially if you are using canon mechs, none of which are hyper optimized), but when the game was designed, tonnage was all they had for balancing forces, and it is what the game revolved around for balancing forces, and as such, was a semi-reasonable balance point.

Quote
How do you reconcile the differences between Tech Bases -- industrial, introductory, lostech, newtech, clantech -- with the desire to balance by tonnage?

At this point, you don't. Which is why they had to invent other balancing mechanisms (BV). But stil, on average, if you use the same tech level, tonnage works ok as a rough balance point, 'cause on average, 60 tons of mech is worth about as much as any other 60 tons of mech. On average. If you push anything to an extreme, it falls apart. But if two people each take 200 tons worth of 4x 3025 canon mechs, those two forces will be roughly balanced to fight and each have a reasonable chance of winning. If you use different tech levels, this certainly doesn't work. But BV does reasonably well with that.

Quote
You're also discounting the fluff's value as a measuring stick in itself, even though (at least in theory) a TRO's descriptive text tells you when a "heavy scout" would be equivalent to another "heavy scout," or "medium fire support" would be equivalent to other "medium fire support."

That's 'cause fluff doesn't measure anything at all. 'Cause "heavy scout" (or whatever) doesn't mean anything quantifiable.

Quote
Consider that a game designer wants 'Mechs to last only until the endgame, while players win by having 'Mechs survive the endgame. What's "good" for a player isn't "good" for game design -- maximized armor drags things out, y'know? "Arbitrary hamstringing" gives the designer tangible control over (or reflects an estimate of) the length of the game.

Sure. But this only holds up if done consistently. And doesn't hold up if players control the mechanism to build and design units. Arbitrarily hamstringing units as a balance factor works fine in a system where is follows some sort of logical pattern or model; it also works fine in a system where all units are constrained by arbitrary limits. Battletech doesn't work like this on either level, however.

To compare BT to a similar, just as old (well, older, but still) game, Star Fleet Battles, ships in SFB are regularly governed and limited by arbitrary design limits--a ship can't have all of its phasers replaced by photon torpedoes or a ship can't put all of it's shield boxes on one shield facing. And this works fine, even though it is all totally arbitrary and governed by made up game explanation, as the arbitrary limits and hamstringng if units is consistent *and* players don't really have the capacity to design and use their own units (i.e. there are no legal "ship designing and building" rules in SFB). So the use of fluff and arbitrary design limits works fine in the design of units in that game.

In Battletech, however, the arbitrary bad design decisions that show up now and then aren't consistent. And don't effect everything across the board. And players have at their disposal the means to design their own units, which means that looking at a mech that has something really dumb going on with it for no good reason is always going to elicit a response of "That's dumb. There is no logical reason for them doing that. If I made that guy, I would have done something else. And the rules support me doing something else, so I don't for the life of me see why the [game] designers did that..."

If the game designers wanted to use arbitrary bad design as a balancing factor, they should have designed a way to do so consistently and logically.

Quote
But why should tonnage be as reliable as Battle Value?

It shouldn't. And isn't. Where is anyone saying it is?


willydstyle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2129
I understand where the designers were coming from when making the 3025 units.  There was such little variety in equipment, that basically the *only* way to have a decent number of units was to make a large portion of them "unoptimal." Most were too slow for their weight, or underarmored, or undersinked because this was, at the time, necessary in order to have variety in unit selection.

However, with Jihad and post-Clan Invasion technology, you start to see so much variety in equipment that I think TPTB's insistence to still make a large portion of designs "unoptimized" is a bit silly. However, just to play Devil's Advocate with myself, using a real balancing system, such as BV2, instantly makes these under-optimized designs playable, which is great, because I really like the Eisenfaust for example, but I just realize that a 45-ton 4/6 mover with XL is incredibly fragile, and it's cheap BV2 makes it well worth using.

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
First, I'd like to say thanks to willydstyle for pointing out, via PM, something else that has changed over time.
I mentioned the Chargers using clubs on the punch table, and he reminded me that clubs now use the whole mech table... I appreciate the reminder, as it points out how the rules have evolved over time.

One of the things that made the original Hatchetman scary was that it did a 9 point hit on the punch table.... now, though, it's not much more than a physical range Large Pulse Laser without the nifty bonus of 2 to hit.

Again, a tactic that was brutally effective, and made a mech that no one considered optimal into a very dangerous machine, has now been changed to reflect game balance..... I'd still use the tactic, because a 16 point hit is still brutal...

Over time, things will change, and there may come a time when we look at the rules, and ask what they were thinking with such un-optimized designs like the Hellstar or Nightstar.
Right now, they are scary.... and under the right circumstances, rightly so.... but just as the Charger with a club on a small battle area was brutal at one time..... things will move on, and the current crop of "deadly" mechs will be surpassed.

Nahuris
« Last Edit: 22 December 2011, 14:26:29 by Nahuris »
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

Greywind

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 855
Headcaps suck --- I was in a tournament once ---- heavy mech free for all ---- and due to randomly rolled starting positions, my Catapult was put in a box canyon, 3 inches in front of an Axeman. There was one way out, and so we both kind of looked at each other, and started heading for the exit. We didn't expect to have to worry about fire, as the rule was that our weapons would not be activated until certain point .... basically the Ref rolled a D6, + the turn number minus 1, and once he had a total of 6, weapons went live.... and the roll was made at fire phase.... so on turn one, weapons would activate on a 6, on turn 2 it would be 5+, on 3 it would be 4+ and so on.... Physical attacks were locked out as well, until weapons went live.... so, figuring I had at least a turn to get out of the canyon, and with all the cliffs around me being level 5+, and therefor too high to jump over.... I ran for the exit, as did the Axeman. Due to initiative, I had to move first, so we ended movement with him being 2 inches behind me.... and the ref rolls a 6. You guessed it, AC/20 to the Head....
We did a Grand Melee.  One player pulled his 'Mech out.  Decided to go with a Dragonfly.  Another opponent had a Warhawk.  Warhawk got initiative and the Dragonfly went down to an ER PPC through the canopy.

Eldragon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Rant Mode ON:

I dislike the existence of any "sub-optimal" canon unit in any time period. I feel it hurts the game. Balancing the game, be it by C-Bill, Tonnage, or BV2, is much harder when some units are clearly wasting tonnage if not outright crap.  I realize there is a fluff reason for it, but it seems to me if designers were going to drop 10-million cbills on a battlemech, they wouldn't screw it up.

Of course there is a huge difference between sub-optimal and specialized. I don't expect a mech to be good at everything. I expect a mech to be good at something. Even if  that 'something' is cannon fodder.

I see so many canon units that  just need minor adjustments to take them from 'sub-optimal, bordering bad' into 'good'. Generally when I play the only custom units allowed are canon units "with the stupid removed". BAP gets dropped, oversinked gets replaced with ammo, etc.

Now in 2011 there are hundreds of TRO designs to pick from, yet I come up with optimized custom designs every week that are not even remotely represented in canon.  That's partially the fun of customizing, and partially a failure of the TROs.

So is there such a thing as an Over-Optimized design? IMHO no, even when you account for the tech available at an era. 
End Rant Mode

Having said all that, I still love the game.


Side note:
It is my understanding that Hatchets/Clubs have always been on the whole mech table. Its never changed, people have just been doing it wrong for so long. My memory is rusty and I don't have my BMR to double check.

Nahuris

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
Rant Mode ON:

I dislike the existence of any "sub-optimal" canon unit in any time period. I feel it hurts the game. Balancing the game, be it by C-Bill, Tonnage, or BV2, is much harder when some units are clearly wasting tonnage if not outright crap.  I realize there is a fluff reason for it, but it seems to me if designers were going to drop 10-million cbills on a battlemech, they wouldn't screw it up.

Of course there is a huge difference between sub-optimal and specialized. I don't expect a mech to be good at everything. I expect a mech to be good at something. Even if  that 'something' is cannon fodder.

I see so many canon units that  just need minor adjustments to take them from 'sub-optimal, bordering bad' into 'good'. Generally when I play the only custom units allowed are canon units "with the stupid removed". BAP gets dropped, oversinked gets replaced with ammo, etc.

Now in 2011 there are hundreds of TRO designs to pick from, yet I come up with optimized custom designs every week that are not even remotely represented in canon.  That's partially the fun of customizing, and partially a failure of the TROs.

So is there such a thing as an Over-Optimized design? IMHO no, even when you account for the tech available at an era. 
End Rant Mode

Having said all that, I still love the game.


Side note:
It is my understanding that Hatchets/Clubs have always been on the whole mech table. Its never changed, people have just been doing it wrong for so long. My memory is rusty and I don't have my BMR to double check.

Unfortunately, I'm going off memory, being at work... but I have managed to get hold of a copy of the original white book with the unseen Shadowhawk, and I believe it said that clubs were punch .... I'l check, and if wrong, then our ref must have done it as a house rule ---- either way, the clubs in that particular battle were punch tabled.

Let me see if I can find the book, and I'll look it up and post.

Nahuris
"A friend will calm you down when you are angry, but a BEST friend will skip along beside you with a baseball bat singing "someone's gonna get it."

"If we are ever in a situation, where I am the voice of reason, we are in a very bad situation."

deathfrombeyond

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1267
  • The fuel that powers the Successor States
First, I'd like to say thanks to willydstyle for pointing out, via PM, something else that has changed over time.
I mentioned the Chargers using clubs on the punch table, and he reminded me that clubs now use the whole mech table... I appreciate the reminder, as it points out how the rules have evolved over time.

One of the things that made the original Hatchetman scary was that it did a 9 point hit on the punch table.... now, though, it's not much more than a physical range Large Pulse Laser without the nifty bonus of 2 to hit.

Point of order, I was under the impression that the clubs and other physical weapons ALWAYS used the full body table, even though it would make more sense if melee weapons DID use the punch table, not to mention giving added incentive to actually use melee weapons!
If House Kurita is a punching bag, at least it's the weeble-wobble type that punches back. House Liao's like a speed bag that just hangs there and takes it. - Neko Bijin

 

Register