Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post here your ideas for the campaign settings

Moderator: Moderators

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by McMadMax » Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:49 pm

Nastyogre wrote: You all do understand when you do this it makes players not want to play? Sure YOU have a good time, but others don't. You win your game, congratulations. You may have driven a new player off or caused an existing player to get fed up and leave?
Is that an argument? If so i can throw in some more.
Do you understand that by lvling Gunnery:Laser on Awesome (or GM on Archer,GB on hetzer and so on) you break the alread-flawed bv-system,have your opponent handicapped and, after a few tries, willing to stop playing?
Sure custom lvling is all nice and fun, but that also removes a whole lot of variety. That is, you get an Awesome-Q cool, there's only one way to lvl it: GL->NAG->3\5. And that is true for a great many units. The majority of them in fact. SO if anyone wants to try out something different, that would put him at a disadvantage, eventually fed up and quit.
Not to mention the 'abuse' of the snipers,something that's remarkably close to driving me off.
In short, all of these are considered fine because everyone could do that and, most importantly, even bot can do that (which pretty much means any player, however bad, can master this). Afterall IF the Karnov ini-sink option is so priceless, just damn buy one for yourself, they appear on the BM every now and then.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:07 pm

McMadMax wrote:
Nastyogre wrote: You all do understand when you do this it makes players not want to play? Sure YOU have a good time, but others don't. You win your game, congratulations. You may have driven a new player off or caused an existing player to get fed up and leave?
Is that an argument? If so i can throw in some more.
Do you understand that by lvling Gunnery:Laser on Awesome (or GM on Archer,GB on hetzer and so on) you break the alread-flawed bv-system,have your opponent handicapped and, after a few tries, willing to stop playing?
Sure custom lvling is all nice and fun, but that also removes a whole lot of variety. That is, you get an Awesome-Q cool, there's only one way to lvl it: GL->NAG->3\5. And that is true for a great many units. The majority of them in fact. SO if anyone wants to try out something different, that would put him at a disadvantage, eventually fed up and quit.
Not to mention the 'abuse' of the snipers,something that's remarkably close to driving me off.
In short, all of these are considered fine because everyone could do that and, most importantly, even bot can do that (which pretty much means any player, however bad, can master this). Afterall IF the Karnov ini-sink option is so priceless, just damn buy one for yourself, they appear on the BM every now and then.
You an I aren't really far off MMM. Odd considering our history. I tend towards agreeing with you. I have a growing concern with ridiculous min/maxing as of late. I have serious concerns with the under BV'd Role Playing skills being abused. I have some concerns with chosen piloting skills (due to optimization)

Some units are designed to be a sniper. To develop them to become one is reasonable. I have a Star League Talon. Runs 8/12 with a PPC and Double Heat sinks and a good amount of armor. all for 35 tons. It's 4/4 (pilot came that way, you are right I never would have leveled it that way willingly) I will take some fast units to try and have it open somebody up and then pounce on it. I could make it a horrid experience. Take a Warrior Vtol. Perhaps a Saladin. Maybe a couple of Locusts to ride escort and then never come close. I won't do that. Will I run some ambush forces? Sure. I tried a Saladin and a Peggy and an Assassin. I do actually engage. If the Talon gets in trouble does it withdraw? Sure. I'm not stupid. It's ok to use a sniper. Design your my whole force around it and play it to the hilt. THAT is the problem. AC 20 carrying ASF's dominated when we allowed Air/Ground ops for a cycle. Total pain to play against. We don't allow it anymore. If it had only been an occasional or even rare game that had it, no problem. It's the scary boogey man army that you meet and hope you can beat. It was common though.

The problem are the players that sell out to the approach that they will make their opponent unable to compete. I understand that we all want to give ourselves the best chance to win. Solid army construction helps that. The question should always be asked "Can a normal, reasonably built army, that is not specifically prepared to meet my force beat it? No? Then perhaps I shouldn't play this, because my opponent won't enjoy the game. I would never do this face to face to my buddy on a table, so I won't do it on Mekwars."

MMM if you have had concerns with some of the choices, I certainly haven't heard anything from you and the other council members haven't said anything that you brought concerns to them. You've played more and longer than most here, me included. Despite our past differences, this is exactly the sort of thing for which your insight is meaningful. Thank you for saying something, I do wish we would have seen something sooner.

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by McMadMax » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:23 pm

Nastyogre wrote: Some units are designed to be a sniper. To develop them to become one is reasonable. I have a Star League Talon. Runs 8/12 with a PPC and Double Heat sinks and a good amount of armor. all for 35 tons. It's 4/4 (pilot came that way, you are right I never would have leveled it that way willingly) I will take some fast units to try and have it open somebody up and then pounce on it. I could make it a horrid experience. Take a Warrior Vtol. Perhaps a Saladin. Maybe a couple of Locusts to ride escort and then never come close. I won't do that. Will I run some ambush forces? Sure. I tried a Saladin and a Peggy and an Assassin. I do actually engage. If the Talon gets in trouble does it withdraw? Sure. I'm not stupid. It's ok to use a sniper. Design your my whole force around it and play it to the hilt. THAT is the problem. AC 20 carrying ASF's dominated when we allowed Air/Ground ops for a cycle. Total pain to play against. We don't allow it anymore. If it had only been an occasional or even rare game that had it, no problem. It's the scary boogey man army that you meet and hope you can beat. It was common though.
It's not about playing a dedicated sniping unit in its intended role (though that would mean we are universally agreed to let LRM-carriers do they job - IDF), it's about designing a whole army to stay stil and deliver AND having a whooping odds of winning the game. I've had a good ammount of games like that,where an all-around army faces an army that's designed to stay&shoot. Only one game wasn't won by snipers and that game players skill differential and an ample ammount of good luck was involved.

P.S. On a side note, whenever admins\council\whoever is in charge this time come up with the ruleset, that very moment the expected behaviour appear. That is there's a behaviour that gets rewarded by the rules (conversly a behaviour that gets punished by the rules). And once the behaviour rewarded by the rules and behaviour powers-in-being what the players to follow don't match, a lot of arguing, kicking, bad blood and other ugly stuff comes.
One can say,that 'you' should not do this that and that and that then say, well actually if you are new\bad\don't care\play a little\ don't communicate that's acceptable and that also gives you an advantage. Noone is buying this, not when it's a competitive server with a xx%(not sure how much it is,but expect it to be around 15% over 2 cycles) rotation rate over the cycle.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:34 pm

So what do you suggest Max? I'll just grant that the The staff/council have made bad choices etc. What is a solution? Was it really better to have a 600-700 BV spread and have nearly unusable units on the ends of the spectrum (high and low) and face the same types of units and forces all the time?

We could just leave it. Let it play out, which is what I am inclined to do, yet I don't want the concerns to become something like weather or Air/Ground that caused a whole lot of problems and player exodus.

There is always a way to game the system. It's a question of just how egregious that is. 3 Warhammer-R's used to play with an Atlas at a 600 BV spread. It was the cheapest unit possible with an Atlas. I suppose an Atlas at 5200 BV or so is pretty scary but you can typically actually fight it. Damn hard to fight a Spartan at 3500 or an Osprey at 3100.

I'm all ears MMM.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by TigerShark » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:36 pm

Bloodknight wrote:
The official battletech rules for double blind play and indirect fire probably were never written with MegaMek in mind,
*shrug* Double-blind only really works in places like MegaMek, because it's a major pain in the butt on the tabletop since you need two sets of the same game and an umpire with a third set for himself. That also means you need three rooms to play it properly to keep up the fog of war. I'Ve seen a lot of people going at it enthusiastically in my tabletop time, but rarely did it work out more than once per group because it's such a hassle, particularly for the umpire, who doesn't really get to play, but has to do all the FASAnomics for all Mechs and inject all the RPG elements ("the Awesome's left leg looks weak").
There were a lot of rules, I believe, which went untested due to how difficult double-blind is to set-up. Sensors being an obvious one, and the ability of simple magscan to nullify DB.

But also the BattleValue of certain pieces of equipment: An Active Probe goes from almost worthless to absolutely essential; ECM goes from lessening damage (slightly) from Artemis-equipped missiles to hiding your army until it's right on top of the enemy; C3/C3i took YEARS to re-evaluate before finding out that spotters were ridiculously over-powered in DB.

So that VTOL usefulness being a problem might have merit here. ::shrug:: Who knows. It's certainly got some additional "value" as a spotter against hidden units. And there's no additional BV assigned to that free perk.

Ares
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:05 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Ares » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:19 pm

My point of view after some time. I gave my opinion to two members of the Council. It has been reinforced continuously.
I strongly suggest removing units sub300 bv. Heavy tracked APCs (266 bv) are an example. I am tired of playing against armies with such units. Just init sinks allowing to have bigger units. Despite the fact that I won practically every game I played versus such armies, it was unpleasant. Every game took a long time. Did I enjoy them? No, I didn't.
I hesitate about going active to start a game because it might take ages to be finished (without enjoyment).

SirNomad
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by SirNomad » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:49 pm

Well, the funny thing is this, if how I were playing were such a problem for other players, how do you explain my rating? When you do the elite unit + low level "fillers", all your opponent really needs to do is rush the elite unit. It's putting all your eggs in one basket, but >I< like to play that way. I like to develop my pilots. It's fun for me although I lose a lot.

As far as the dedicated sniper army. Hide in a hole, refuse to engage. If they want to play, they'll have to move. Otherwise, cancel the task and move on.

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by McMadMax » Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:57 am

Nastyogre wrote:So what do you suggest Max? I'll just grant that the The staff/council have made bad choices etc. What is a solution? Was it really better to have a 600-700 BV spread and have nearly unusable units on the ends of the spectrum (high and low) and face the same types of units and forces all the time?

We could just leave it. Let it play out, which is what I am inclined to do, yet I don't want the concerns to become something like weather or Air/Ground that caused a whole lot of problems and player exodus.

There is always a way to game the system. It's a question of just how egregious that is. 3 Warhammer-R's used to play with an Atlas at a 600 BV spread. It was the cheapest unit possible with an Atlas. I suppose an Atlas at 5200 BV or so is pretty scary but you can typically actually fight it. Damn hard to fight a Spartan at 3500 or an Osprey at 3100.

I'm all ears MMM.
If you are looking at a solution that would make everyonme happy there's none.
Casualy players might not bother about the outcome of the change, powers-that-be have to. That's why ruleset was criticised left, right and middle, and pretty often i must add.
'Abuse' of APCs as ini-sinks was pretty obvious (and was brought up in another suggestion thread), council voted to give it a try, ergo they assumed that this 'abuse' hurts less than bv-spread removal benefits the community.
All that pretty much means it falls onto the council to decide whose cries for a rulechange to ignore.

If the council chooses to solve the problem by removing set ammoun of units from play, when do they stop?
At 400 bv? When ppl start using Stinger to scout\ini-\bv-sink.
If so, isn't getting rid of the MAD-II and Highlander removes far less variety than getting rid of a dozen lower-bv designs?

As for a Fatlass, i just checked the buildtables, you can team it up with over 90% of house\common designs (90% is a pull chance) and at least 60% of the heavies (heavies vary greatly though from 60 to almost 80 depending on the faction, DRGs,JMs and RFLs apparently are no good for the statistics). AS+3 WHM isn't as scary as you make it sound, AWS-Q AWS-V WVR-M and a CRD-R have the same bv (give or take a few), pretty sure other houses can present something similar.

Reworking of the buildtables might be another solution if council decides the get back to bv-spread.
Relegating those questionable units to a BM-table and removing them from house tables would be one solution (as the BM is now open, and you can always scrap a salvage, non will be forced to play a unit he can't squese into an army).
Other solution would be to split buildtables into 2 (heavy-duty units and lighter units) assigning different factories for each one (RP pull tables as well),i guess that won't be very much of a change to a server setting (and won't take any coding). So if you want APCs or Vtols or some other cheap scout vee, and have a way to use them, pull from auxilary light vee factory, if not pull from the core light vee table.

Personally i always wanted more variaty in games (probably comes from the fact that i play a lot), but was aware of the imminent minmaxing that would follow, and so never actually insisted on the change. It was never worth it for me, other players apparently have other priorities. With the change in place i just don't care, i'll min-max if i feel like it, i will not if i don't feel like it. I've run into some really ugly stuff and fielded some myself. To me it's fun because it's new.

P.S. I belive this discussion is well beyond the 'Suggestions' thread and would ask admins to consider moving it to a "General discussion' thread.

User avatar
Bloodknight
MegamekNET PR Administrator
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Bloodknight » Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:05 am

Sure custom lvling is all nice and fun, but that also removes a whole lot of variety. That is, you get an Awesome-Q cool, there's only one way to lvl it: GL->NAG->3\5.
Put random leveling back in. ;).

Abe
Sarna.net Ambassador
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:14 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Abe » Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:10 pm

Or it could be a % of the BV. So, imagine a 10% rule that disallowed certain units at 300 for 3000 BV game, 400 for 4000 or such. That way you still have a way to use lower BV units in places they were meant. Obviously, play with the %. And you could have a minimum BV too, like nothing under 300, even if your ary drops to 2500 BV or something. Or a max instead if you prefer, you can still run these units of 600 BV in an army for 7500 BV. You get the idea.

I think the 3025 tech hurts us too. Add in mixed stuff and you could just use targeting computers, pulse lasers and LBx to take down VTOLs. You run a lot faster with XLs so you can close with them more quickly to drop your range. You know?

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Zerberus » Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:56 pm

Or all pilots could start at 3/4 ...

SirNomad
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by SirNomad » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:14 pm

Or y'all can leave things as-is. Plenty of people are winning games against unbalanced forces. "I don't like it, but I beat them all the time" is a comment I see. Then what's your gripe, really? Someone doesn't play in the style you prefer, but clearly battle values do work and min-maxed armies still lose, regularly. Many of the suggestions people offer just support their preferred style of play that they have developed over the years, but really don't improve fairness.

I LIKE running hordes of light vees, why should I be penalized for this? Sometimes I throw a 'mech or two in there, big deal! Last night I used a karnov exactly as intended by the TRO fluff, as an infantry transport. Worked great to chase a camping Crusader out of the woods. Yet, I couldn't enjoy the game because I had to worry the entire time whether someone was going to go crying like a small child to an admin that I dared use one...that it was an initiative sink, etc., and maybe instead of complaining all the time, play the game. This is BattleTech, not ArgueTech or WhineTech. These are the folks making games unenjoyable, not someone who throws in a crappy APC or something similar. If you don't like someone's light vees, blow them up. I don't want to go back to the days when having anything but mechs in your bays felt like a waste of space...where you rolled your eyes when you got a too-low BV unit 'cause you knew you'd never be able to use it so you'd have to pay to scrap it or have it hogging your bay space.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:37 am

Don't mistake my interest in a solution as being sold on the idea that the problem is bad enough to warrant action. 2 of the council members have expressed a more "wait and see" attitude that meshes with my own. I like to draw out ideas and have some idea of what we MIGHT do. We might actually come up with a really good idea that solves the problem without some of the negatives we have pointed out. So I see no harm in talking about things as long as we are polite and not acrimonious.

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by BarukKhazad » Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:13 pm

Nastyogre wrote:Don't mistake my interest in a solution as being sold on the idea that the problem is bad enough to warrant action. 2 of the council members have expressed a more "wait and see" attitude that meshes with my own. I like to draw out ideas and have some idea of what we MIGHT do. We might actually come up with a really good idea that solves the problem without some of the negatives we have pointed out. So I see no harm in talking about things as long as we are polite and not acrimonious.
Mr. Ogre! Very well said.
I had opinions/That didn't matter/I had a brain/That felt like pancake batter
I got a backyard/With nothing in it/Except a stick/A dog/And a box with something in it
The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3890
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Spork » Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:02 am

SirNomad wrote:Worked great to chase a camping Crusader out of the woods. Yet, I couldn't enjoy the game because I had to worry the entire time whether someone was going to go crying like a small child to an admin that I dared use one...that it was an initiative sink, etc., and maybe instead of complaining all the time, play the game. This is BattleTech, not ArgueTech or WhineTech. These are the folks making games unenjoyable, not someone who throws in a crappy APC or something similar. If you don't like someone's light vees, blow them up. I don't want to go back to the days when having anything but mechs in your bays felt like a waste of space...where you rolled your eyes when you got a too-low BV unit 'cause you knew you'd never be able to use it so you'd have to pay to scrap it or have it hogging your bay space.
[Edited because I'm starting to get pissed about this and in the original post, I handled it poorly]

Please stop complaining about the fact that I think that army was shite. You will not change my mind, and there are approximately 3 people you *really* don't want to piss off on this site. I am one of those.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

Post Reply