My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:42 pm

Post 4th SW era would be interesting, pre-clan invasion. That's as far as I would ever want to go. Perhaps full blown Star League. Sillytech? No, I play Battletech, not Sillytech.

As a player of Battletech since 1988 (I think that was the year) This game isn't much different. Really its not. Partial cover. Introduction of vehicles (changes to those rules) Infantry.

This isn't pure mech combat but Battltech isn't that anymore. Protomechs, Battlearmor, WiGe's. It's had a whole lot more changes than we have implemented here. I don't quite get the "This isn't Battletech" here. No. It's not a perfect representation. Mekwars is awfully darn close though. Only way to get closer is to play it on a table. To each his own.

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Lando » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:09 pm

Casimir wrote:I am relatively new, so my feedback is only regarding specific points:

- Please disable "mobile Headquarte" units. They are more than cheesy and lead to frustration very easy.
I support Casimirs wish. i've played with the MobileHQ some games, and if someone is interested, I will write down my experiences with it in the MobileHQ Thread.
Casimir wrote: - Please activate the "stacking-ini-bonus"-rule, so ini is more evenly distributed between the parties.
At this point I'm a little indifferent. There are pros and cons to this "stacking-ini-bonus", but in the end it doesn't matters for me, if we play with our without this bonus.
Casimir wrote: - Please activate the "move-double-units-at the beginning of the turn"-rule.
Please don't do that. If you bring more units than your opponent, your units are smaller, less powerful, and more fragile than the units of your opponent. The only chance you have is fast moving and positioning your units in favorable places. If we use frontside ini phases, and you loose the ini, you will have to expose two units before the bigger units of your opponent starts to move. You will be an easy pick for every camper.

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Lando » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:17 pm

By the way:

I would like to see an ini bonus with the Commander!

Maybe +1 and if the Commander is leveled he gets an additional +1 ini bonus per level.

I hope this would strengthens the position of the Commander. I played 2 Assassinations so far, but I don't see any benefits with that mission. On the other side will this lead to more pilot levels in the armies, because with the +1 ini bonus its get more useful.

I never look at the enemy Commanders in my fights, maybe that would chance also, and makes fights more interesting.

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Klingon » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:44 pm

Initiative is per side; if having a commander gets you a +1 to init, everyone gets a +1, so it doesn't change anything, unless I don't quite understand what you're suggesting.
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:48 pm

Commanders can be assigned initiative bonuses. Legends has the code, but they don't share it. I used it on my side. It's fun and creates a sense of urgency and layer of tactics.

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Klingon » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:49 pm

So it's "you get an init bonus as long as your commander is alive/coordinating the battle" kind of thing?
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Lando » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:50 pm

Klingon wrote:Initiative is per side; if having a commander gets you a +1 to init, everyone gets a +1, so it doesn't change anything, unless I don't quite understand what you're suggesting.
But if the Commander gets killed in the game? Then the bonus is only on one side.
Or one player field a 3/4 Commander (INI-bonus +3) his Opponent a 3/5 Commander (INI - Bonus +2).

That was my thought.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 01, 2015 7:59 pm

Klingon wrote:So it's "you get an init bonus as long as your commander is alive/coordinating the battle" kind of thing?
Yes. The code exists. It wouldn't be too difficult as it's just activationg a quirk.

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

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Bloodknight » Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:01 pm

But if the Commander gets killed in the game?
That's how Legends does it. I don't like it much, it's basically like playing with two MHQs and the one who loses his first loses the game.
I'm going to deactivate the MHQ init bonus next cycle. The vehicles remain on the tables.
but I don't see any benefits with that mission
It's just something I was trying out. I'll up the payout for that mission in the next cycle compared to Patrol and Skirmish. I might ditch Patrol altogether, it's a bit superfluous.
Please activate the "stacking-ini-bonus"-rule, so ini is more evenly distributed between the parties.
No.
- Please activate the "move-double-units-at the beginning of the turn"-rule.
Also no. We've got enough house rules as it is (infantry initiative and ammo restrictions), I don't want to use actual game changers that are not BT rules.

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:55 am

Bloodknight wrote:
Please activate the "stacking-ini-bonus"-rule, so ini is more evenly distributed between the parties.
No.
- Please activate the "move-double-units-at the beginning of the turn"-rule.
Also no. We've got enough house rules as it is (infantry initiative and ammo restrictions), I don't want to use actual game changers that are not BT rules.
I can certainly see the logic in denying his second request. Front-loaded init does swing the balance of the game against swarm armies that isn't really fair. I actually liked Jackal's suggestion of having a "middle-loaded init" system but I know that's not coded into MM.

What I can't see the logic in, is outright refusing to consider Init-Stacking Bonus. That option is really a no-brainer. It doesn't swing the balance between one type of force or another. All it does is reduce the amount of games that are won purely because one individual had ridiculously crummy luck and couldn't win init to save their life. It mitigates the RNG. It has no effect on a player's skill, tactics or strategy. It also helps to speed games up as, the only real way to deal with continually losing init is to run/hide/withdraw/delay until you finally do start to win init. At the end of the day, Inti-Stacking Bonus would only have a positive effect on games.

The only reason I can think people wouldn't want Init-Stacking Bonus turned on is because it's a "House Rule". And that's not really a good reason. How many other house rules are in use on MMN? Plenty. Why are they allowed? Presumably because they've been deemed to have a "positive effect" on the game. I've already pointed out two positive effects on the game Init-Stacking Bonus would have. What negative effects would it bring that could outweigh the positives?

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Zerberus » Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:11 am

You can build armies that solely rely on having init. Or you could build armies that are indifferent regarding init. The voices that want some kind of init compensation usually want the former, since they cannot deal with losing init a lot. I call one-trick-pony army builds instead of proper preparation. And yes, all those that claim init streaks are a problem only look at a single game. As usual, it evens out in the long run, and the effects of a higher amplitude are felt only by those who cannot deal with losing init properly. So yes, it is a matter of skill.
What's next? Re-rolling headshots and TACs? Move on, it's part of the game, and the influence of box cars or snake eyes is bigger by far ...

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Sun Jun 14, 2015 1:53 pm

The majority of the house rules used here are optional rules that are part of actual battltech rules. Front loading initiative and initiative streak compensation are not. ( as I understand it ) In discussions with admins past and present the intent of this server is to present a very accurate representation of the rules of Battletech. Most of the rules we use that are points of discussion are campaign rules not core mechanisms. They are loathe to alter core mechanisms. Thus this sort of request has been denied more than once. That's the reason I was provided when I and others made the exact same request in the past.

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:00 pm

Zerberus wrote:You can build armies that solely rely on having init. Or you could build armies that are indifferent regarding init. The voices that want some kind of init compensation usually want the former, since they cannot deal with losing init a lot.
I don't think that's the case at all. Swarm armies benefit from winning Init a lot. So do generalist lance armies. It really doesn't matter what type of army you run. If you win init a lot, you're going to benefit. Which type of army benefits from losing init a lot?
Zerberus wrote:And yes, all those that claim init streaks are a problem only look at a single game. As usual, it evens out in the long run, and the effects of a higher amplitude are felt only by those who cannot deal with losing init properly.
Completely irrelevant in the debate of "what pros/cons does Init Compensation Stacking" bring.
Zerberus wrote:So yes, it is a matter of skill.
If by "skill" you mean having the patience to play the uber-cheese game of 'run away and hide until I finally win init'". Some of us would rather not have these already lengthy games drag on needlessly.
Zerberus wrote:What's next? Re-rolling headshots and TACs? Move on, it's part of the game, and the influence of box cars or snake eyes is bigger by far ...
Have there been people complaining about the way head shots and TACs are resolved? Another irrelevant point in this debate.
NastyOgre wrote:The majority of the house rules used here are optional rules that are part of actual battltech rules...
Seriously, Nasty? You want to rehash this?

There is a clear difference between house rules and optional rules. Disallowing specialty munitions for some launchers of a given type, or forcing infantry to move at a specific point during the move phase are house rules. They're 100% made up and not supported anywhere in the core rulebooks. "Floating crits", however, is an example of an optional rule that's actually found in the rulebooks (TacOps page 77). I'd also argue that force composition restrictions and BV spread restrictions are a form of house rule too, but that's another kettle of fish that we don't need to get into.

There's nothing wrong with a house rule if it's deemed to be beneficial by the play group. So, please stop pretending that MMN is "superior" and doesn't use house rules. It does. Why not turn on Init-Streak Compensation for a cycle and see if anybody really has any problems with it?
NastyOgre wrote:Most of the rules we use that are points of discussion are campaign rules not core mechanisms. They are loathe to alter core mechanisms. Thus this sort of request has been denied more than once. That's the reason I was provided when I and others made the exact same request in the past.
IMO I gotta say, as far as house rules go, artificially inflating or deflating the BV of the vast majority of units in the game because of MMN's specialty ammo rules has much more of a "core mechanism-altering effect" than a house rule that helps to even out the RNG for both players. Seriously... That one house rule affects HUNDREDS of the units in use on MMN (whether positively or negatively)... Not to mention that EVERY vehicle in the game is made that much safer by not having to worry about infernos or thunder LRMs as much.

Also, forcing infantry to move at a specific time in the move phase is fairly heavy on the "altering of core mechanics"... Not that it's not a good house rule.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:40 pm

I didn't say all Cgee, just most. And yes MOST of our points of discussion are in fact campaign rules. Specialty ammo and separate infantry initiative are two examples of house ruling core rules to the environment. Altering initiative is a core mechanic. There is a difference. It would be like changing when firing occurs or how move mods are applied or such.

BV spreads are a campaign rule, not an alteration of Battletech rules. Even allowing or disallowing ammo is not an alteration of the core mechanics, it is changing what is available. It's a house rule. It's no different than running a scenario where you are out of ammo or have some other affect. (Pre-existing damage, whatever) Of course, it's on a larger scale but the core rule or mechanic isn't changed.

Yes, a core mechanic was changed for infantry and initiative. We saw the effect of taking infantry and using them as init sinks. Environment improved by it.

There is not a compelling argument that init streak compensation or front loading improves the environment. It changes it certainly. Getting the shaft on init sucks. Not having TACs would be cool too. There is even the ability in the client to eliminate it. They certainly decide games frequently. Lucky crits or a lack of crits have decided games for and against me far more often than a giant init streak. People don't complain about it? Well they do. All the time "BS tacs" or "I hit that open section 3 times this round and I couldn't get a crit" We just haven't seen a request to change the rules to eliminate TAC's or change how often crits happen on open sections. iwould think Zerb is certainly right. Many more games are decided on a crit, TAC or headshot than a big init streak. I don't have data on it, but extrapolation of the odds. The odds of an init streak stretching 5 or more rounds is going to be lower than any given round with all the firing and physicals that take place that a Headshot, TAC or Crit happens that effectively decides the game.

Init streak compensation only helps for 1 round anyway. You might lose 4 inits, win one and lose 4 more and you are still pretty screwed. I think you would see as much or more "waiting for init" because you could begin to more reliably predict when you might get init and set up to take advantage.

I'm not going to rehash any discussion on ammo. We don't agree, we both feel the rules and views of the Btech writers support our views. We aren't going to convince the other and as it sits, you haven't been able to convince the staff to change their view of infernos or other specialty ammo. I can't take any credit for that, I simply agreed with the view that infernos in SRM 4's and 6's would have more negative affects.

Here is the most relevant point. This question has been asked MULTIPLE times and answered by MULTIPLE admins. The answer is no. We will not use init streak compensation or front loading (or mid-loading) init as a default setting. Just like sim fire.

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Zerberus » Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:38 pm

c_gee: there is no debate ...

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:26 am

Nastyogre wrote:Specialty ammo and separate infantry initiative are two examples of house ruling core rules to the environment. Altering initiative is a core mechanic. There is a difference. It would be like changing when firing occurs or how move mods are applied or such.
Changing those two rules has a huge impact on the game, literally affecting HUNDREDS of units. How units are valued is kind of a core mechanic of the game (whether you agree with how BV2 works or not).

Do you understand what Init-Streak Compensation does? In case you don't, it just provides the loser of two consecutive init rolls with a +1 to his next init roll, and that +1 becomes cumulative for each init he loses in a row after that until he finally wins an init roll. To say ISC is like "changing when firing occurs or how move mods are applied or such" is beyond ridiculous. ISC simply helps to mitigate extreme runs of crappy RNG. It's not changing the core mechanics of the game. A massive change to the core mechanics would be something like if a rule were introduced that said that the loser of init was allowed to move and fire any one of his opponent's units as he sees fit during the next turn (for example).
Nastyogre wrote:We just haven't seen a request to change the rules to eliminate TAC's or change how often crits happen on open sections.
Exactly. So why bring up the possibility of TACs having a worse affect on a game than crap RNG runs during init if nobody's complaining about them? People are complaining about crap RNG runs during init so it's appropriate to discuss options like ISC. Nobody's complaining about TACs, so using this as an argument against ISC seems irrelevant and inappropriate. About as useful in this debate as pointing out that LRMs have a minimum range.
Nastyogre wrote:Here is the most relevant point. This question has been asked MULTIPLE times and answered by MULTIPLE admins. The answer is no. We will not use init streak compensation or front loading (or mid-loading) init as a default setting. Just like sim fire.
That point is actually the least relevant. The player base can and probably does change a lot. New players means new opinions/new desires. Just because something's been done one way for a long time doesn't mean that things can't or won't EVER change. For the admins to not even entertain requests from players who may want change is narrow-minded, yet I'd like to imagine that those admins like to think of themselves as open to suggestions. So what's the harm in asking and stating your reasons for asking?

So what exactly are the REAL cons of ISC? Are there any? Can you provide an actual reason for not using ISC that doesn't really just boil down to "we're elite purists around here and that's not pure". I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to that, but it's often my perceived mindset of many of the old guard around MMN.

So I'll ask it again... Why not turn on ISC for a cycle and see if anybody really has any problems with it? You might find that nobody actually does have a problem with it and that some actually like it being on. Or maybe people will hate it and you turn it back off. Worst case scenario is that you've spent 1 cycle actually finding out.

Casimir
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:57 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Casimir » Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:36 pm

Hey guys, please dont get angry. I did not want to start a religious war over that topic. Even though i have to admit, that c_gee has some very valid points. But i'll leave it at that.

Here is the most relevant point. This question has been asked MULTIPLE times and answered by MULTIPLE admins. The answer is no. We will not use init streak compensation or front loading (or mid-loading) init as a default setting. Just like sim fire.
Can i interpretate that as: Like Simfire it is a possibility to activate ISC if both partys want it? BTW: Is it already possible? Most ppl i know always complain about the serious impact of ini-streaks, so i guess we could give it a try.

If you allow me one other point: Wouldn't it be possible to use the next cycle (maybe a short one of a mont or two) for experimentation?

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

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by McMadMax » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:44 pm

Casimir wrote: Can i interpretate that as: Like Simfire it is a possibility to activate ISC if both partys want it? BTW: Is it already possible? Most ppl i know always complain about the serious impact of ini-streaks, so i guess we could give it a try.
It is possible,i've seen it more than once.

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:11 pm

Casimir wrote: Can i interpretate that as: Like Simfire it is a possibility to activate ISC if both partys want it?
Yes, like Sim-fire (and any other optional rule that's programmed into MM), if both players are okay with using ISC, it can be turned on.

There's certainly some people who will agree to turn things like ISC on, though to be fair, there's a lot more who won't and one of the reasons that I've seen for not turning on ISC (especially from newer players) is because despite having the rules for ISC explained to them in the lobby, they still don't really understand and/or they think you're trying to gain an advantage over them.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:18 pm

I understand ISC perfectly and was once a proponent of it as a permanent setting. I got my answer and left it at that.

I would prefer random unit initiative over anything else, it is much more realistic. It's too dramatic a change however and the client does not support it.

I agree to ISC almost any time it's requested. Though if I thought an opponent had an army that relied heavily on initiative, I would likely refuse. Much in the same way I refuse simfire if the opponent admits to having infernos or flamers.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:20 pm

Nastyogre wrote:I understand ISC perfectly and was once a proponent of it as a permanent setting. I got my answer and left it at that.

I would prefer random unit initiative over anything else, it is much more realistic. It's too dramatic a change however and the client does not support it.

I agree to ISC almost any time it's requested. Though if I thought an opponent had an army that relied heavily on initiative, I would likely refuse. Much in the same way I refuse simfire if the opponent admits to having infernos or flamers.
What is random unit initiative?

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Zerberus » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:44 pm

Individual initiative.

Every unit got its own roll, and they must move in that order. Kills any tactics and is death sentence for vulnerable units (or drags out games).

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:00 pm

Zerberus wrote:Individual initiative.

Every unit got its own roll, and they must move in that order. Kills any tactics and is death sentence for vulnerable units (or drags out games).
Agreed. I have seen many a part-time tabletop player use and like it because it's "easy". Usually they'll use a deck of cards or something. They'll assign a card to a mech (Battlemaster=3 of Hearts) and then shuffle the deck and flip cards to determine move order.

It's horrible.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:22 pm

People like using it for the most strict and robotic interpretation of zellbrigen. Feels counter intuitive.

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Klingon » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:35 pm

c_gee wrote:
Zerberus wrote:Individual initiative.

Every unit got its own roll, and they must move in that order. Kills any tactics and is death sentence for vulnerable units (or drags out games).
Agreed. I have seen many a part-time tabletop player use and like it because it's "easy". Usually they'll use a deck of cards or something. They'll assign a card to a mech (Battlemaster=3 of Hearts) and then shuffle the deck and flip cards to determine move order.

It's horrible.
t's most useful when you have a tournament, and most players get distracted by waiting their turn more than a couple of minutes. What you do is you arrange what unit is what card ahead of time, print this out with a blank for the name that you write in when you assign units at the start of the game. This way, instead of:

"Well, I think we should move Mike's Battlemaster first."
"I don't have a decent place to go/I don't want to go first."
(repeat for every player on the side)
Ten minutes later:
"Okay, we'll dice off."
"Aww, crap. Okay, I'll just do what I can."
You have instead:

"Okay... *flip* King of Spades... Mike, you're up."
"Aww, crap. Okay, I'll just do what I can."

Same net result, minus the ten minutes of arguing. People are angry at the RNG instead of each other, which I think is a good thing.

In a Megamek setting, OTOH, I'm just not sure. I think it would make players play more conservatively at the start of the round and more aggressively later, but I really don't know. I'm pretty sure it would eliminate the hammer-and-anvil type lances, where you have your bruiser who gets in their faces and the speedy flanker to zip into the backs (always the last one to move) and make things tend towards more generalist builds; seeing as how the only lances I heard about as true horror stories were the former and not the latter, I'm not sure that's a bad thing either.
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

Post Reply