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 15, 2015 9:43 pm

Individual initiative works when everybody wants it and understands it. It's not appropriate for here at all. I don't agree it kills tactics but it makes for very different tactics. I like it. Again only because I played tabletop with guys that liked it and wanted to use it.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:32 pm

It removes any thinking or tactics. It becomes a series of individual games being played. You can't really create a battle tactic for your force, so much so you push forward with one unit, hide another, etc. Also, can't use IDF unless your spotter goes first, and if you bring a swarm, get ready for an incredibly long game. :-)

It also really hurts brawler units and favors camping and range. The only way to avoid having a single unit flanked is to walk it backward toward your group for protection. You might have one unit creep forward at the end of the round, but that's it. Units like the Spider become flat out worthless.
Last edited by TigerShark on Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 10:36 pm

It's a very different way to play. No tactics? No, it's complex to a fault. Trying to figure out what to do with so many variables. Very satisfying.

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 » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:46 am

The players that are up to it will love it, but this'd not be the majority.
"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")

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 » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:48 am

I entirely agree.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:27 am

It works as a role playing function. When the individual pilot is being played by a person. Like in group combat or Clan warfare. That's the intended purpose

Rushvin
Former MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:15 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Rushvin » Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:03 pm

While your complaining we are not looking at your side you are not looking at what all your side does.

ISC means if I won init for 2 turns I effectively have a -2 to init roll (since you get the +2) the next turn. The reason being is not my fault or anything you did. Its something to be 'fair' but with RNG (be it dice or digital) you can't have call being fair giving one player an advantage over another 'just because X happened'.
If you hit me more then I hit you should I get bonus to hit you next turn to be 'fair'? I didn't do anything to miss so I should get the +1 to hit you then.
That is what your argument for it boils down to. Each of us should hit each other the same amount of time for the same damage in the same location.

The argument of init order has slightly been done and your argument did notice one part but you ignored what ramifications they did. Infantry was removed from normal init order to remove some of the worst excesses that can happen with such. As a player I can see why...
I bring 4 infantry and 4 mechs vs. your 4 mechs. I lost init so move 2 infantry, you move a mech. I move 2 more infantry then you have to move another mech. I got 4 mechs unmoved to 2 of yours. Even though you won init it feels more like you will always lose it till you get rid of my infantry.
Yes they did custom rule for init but they did it would cause more 'balance' then your rule in many games.

The ammunition loads options are of course fun to toss back and forth. This an issue not of rules but as another said campaign level. The balance of what some munitions can do vs. a feeling of what unbalanced actions can happen.
-You want SRMs to all be able to load Infernos. The end results is not a battle of skill but who explodes from ammo cooking off first. Tanks don't need armor as they are just going to blow up anyways from frying. End results is how many SRMs you got to mine and who can keep cooler longer. 3025 tech has issues with heat on mechs and your wish for such ammo would see fights grind in such a fashion to not be very... fun. Sure it will be amusing once or twice but after that it gets disgusting to always see happen.
-Thunder ammo is an area denial weapon that will not harm anyone if they know where it landed and just avoid the hex. This makes it for a slower game as unit will now have to go around or backs off. Sort of like you want a Spider hunt by forcing the enemy away from you.
-And a few of the ammos by cannon were not even developed yet but Admin decided they would be good in the campaign so added them.

Now yes you can flame about this but please try to look at both sides of your argument. Does your request really have a good balance to the server and its current rules or would we have to change them?

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

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:49 pm

Rushvin wrote: ISC means if I won init for 2 turns I effectively have a -2 to init roll (since you get the +2) the next turn. The reason being is not my fault or anything you did. Its something to be 'fair' but with RNG (be it dice or digital) you can't have call being fair giving one player an advantage over another 'just because X happened'.
That's exactly what happens when you win init without ISC, too. You get an advantage 'just because X happened" (in this case, X = winning a random die roll). So your point is kind of irrelevant.

So again, what other than it "being an icky house rule", are the cons of using ISC?

I won't bother addressing the specifics of the rest of what you have to say. I have no desire to re-hash the pros/cons of those two house rules. Whatever their pros and cons are, it's a fact that A) they are indeed house rules and B) they're in use on MMN.

And you know what? THAT'S FINE!

Seriously. I have no problem with the use of house rules if they make sense. I have no problem whatsoever with the inf-init house rule used here on MMN (the ammo restriction house rule I'm less happy about but I can put up with it).

I'm simply trying to point out that people shouldn't be using "ISC is a house rule and we don't use house rules here on MMN" as some sort of reason to justify dislike against ISC when it's a fact that MMN does use house rules. It's hypocritical.
Rushvin wrote:Does your request really have a good balance to the server and its current rules or would we have to change them?
It wasn't my request, but I certainly do support it. More importantly, in answer to your actual question, I don't know. It might be good for the server and it might not. We can try to project the results from various angles all day long but the only way we really find out is by trying it for a cycle.

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 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:15 am

c_gee wrote:Seriously. I have no problem with the use of house rules if they make sense. I have no problem whatsoever with the inf-init house rule used here on MMN (the ammo restriction house rule I'm less happy about but I can put up with it).

I'm simply trying to point out that people shouldn't be using "ISC is a house rule and we don't use house rules here on MMN" as some sort of reason to justify dislike against ISC when it's a fact that MMN does use house rules. It's hypocritical.
If you're saying that the staff does not have set rules to adhere by, then yes, that's correct. Hypocritical.

Do the staff implement house rules? Yes, but VERY rarely, and pretty much only when NOT doing so means things are horribly broken.

Some rules have to be implemented because there's a campaign server in effect; the core BT rules say nothing about this at all, so we had to make up things that made sense. like BV spread, etc. See prior statement.

So to directly answer you: no, it's not just because it'd be a house rule, but it is the deciding factor; the straw that breaks this particular camel's back. You have been heard; the server operator even chimed directly in in response. Once (s)he weights in and says 'yea' or 'nay', that's the end of the discussion, unless you've got something not already in evidence to cite.

And if you really think it'd be such a deal breaker to not have it, you're always welcome to set up your own Mekwars server and try it; it's open source.
"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")

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

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:49 am

Klingon wrote: Do the staff implement house rules? Yes, but VERY rarely, and pretty much only when NOT doing so means things are horribly broken.
I'm still not convinced that there are any real negatives to ISC and IMO no one, including you, has provided any actual cons to its use, but at least you've provided an angle that I hadn't thought of. It's a fair policy to adopt as a starting point, that's for sure.
Klingon wrote: Some rules have to be implemented because there's a campaign server in effect; the core BT rules say nothing about this at all, so we had to make up things that made sense. like BV spread, etc. See prior statement.
Again, I certainly don't have an issue with that. I do the same thing when I host tabletop games. All I have ever said in this entire "ISC matter" is that I support Casimir's request and my reasons for it (namely that it could help mitigate crazy RNG and help speed up games). Seriously. Go back and read what I've written. All I've done is make points for ISC and point out when others have tried to derail the argument with irrelevant side-arguments (like trying to justify the use of other house rules that I don't care to argue over). I have done my best to avoid getting bogged down in those irrelevant side-arguements and have only asked for valid reasons for not considering Casimir's request other than it requiring the use of another house rule.

Anywho...

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:02 am

Look, it's not going to happen. Ever. Lol They've said as much and is worth moving on.

Pretty sure if some folks had their way, they'd roll everything back to the old boxed set from 1987. It's just not the player base to foster those kinds of rule changes.

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

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Zerberus » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:34 pm

I like having init streaks. I have the impression that a lot of players like having init streaks. That compensation thing makes init streaks less likely (still can and will happen anyway, of course - which will be cause for blaming RNG even more). Therefore I don't want that compensation thing.

Yes, I will be on the recieving end of init streaks because of that. It happens, so I suck it up and play on. Dealing with extremes in one direction or the other is fun for me. It's the same when using a leveled assault op army against some 4/5 (or worse) piloted zombie bricks. Something that decreases that amplitude takes away from my fun. It's really that easy.

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 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:40 am

The more I think about it. I tend to agree with Zerb. Part of the strategy of this game is learning to play with and without initiative. A lot of players only disengage when they don't have initiative. Learning to attack without it is an art, one sign of a good player. It's common enough to find opponents that only brawl or simply wait until they get initiative and jump in for the kick. ISC would allow for being able to predict the end of a streak and position to take advantage. I think ISC would encourage more of that sort of play. So that is perhaps a negative to ISC.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:44 am

Nastyogre wrote:The more I think about it. I tend to agree with Zerb. Part of the strategy of this game is learning to play with and without initiative. A lot of players only disengage when they don't have initiative. Learning to attack without it is an art, one sign of a good player. It's common enough to find opponents that only brawl or simply wait until they get initiative and jump in for the kick. ISC would allow for being able to predict the end of a streak and position to take advantage. I think ISC would encourage more of that sort of play. So that is perhaps a negative to ISC.
It really doesn't do as much as you think. And it doesn't kick in until the 3rd turn of init loss.

Turn 1 loss +0
Turn 2 loss +0
Turn 3 loss +1
Turn 4 loss +2

...In the end, not that big an effect except to prevent a full game of one player monopolizing init. Not trying to convince anyone of anything. But that's how it works.

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 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:31 am

TigerShark wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:The more I think about it. I tend to agree with Zerb. Part of the strategy of this game is learning to play with and without initiative. A lot of players only disengage when they don't have initiative. Learning to attack without it is an art, one sign of a good player. It's common enough to find opponents that only brawl or simply wait until they get initiative and jump in for the kick. ISC would allow for being able to predict the end of a streak and position to take advantage. I think ISC would encourage more of that sort of play. So that is perhaps a negative to ISC.
It really doesn't do as much as you think. And it doesn't kick in until the 3rd turn of init loss.

Turn 1 loss +0
Turn 2 loss +0
Turn 3 loss +1
Turn 4 loss +2

...In the end, not that big an effect except to prevent a full game of one player monopolizing init. Not trying to convince anyone of anything. But that's how it works.
Yes, I'm aware. I've played with it several times. Certainly its not like a mobile HQ or something like that. It also resets after you get init. So it isn't a huge impact. It does provide some slanting of the odds, or blunting or whatever you want to call it. It isn't the silver bullet it's made out to be. I've actually played games where all it did was mean that somebody won init once in every 4 or 5 turns and then went back on a losing streak. One might think that's an argument for it, but that's not my intent. It really makes so little difference, potentially anyway, there isn't much point in house ruling an unofficial, mechanic changing rule. People will still get hosed by init. Indeed maybe its worse when you are using ISC and a streak lasts 6 or 7 turns due to rotten luck since you would expect to get at least one round but then you don't.

So the rule would largely just change perception, rather than have significant impact and would open the door to timing winning initiative with armies designed for such. Granted, kind of foolish. You could just as easily win init normally and take advantage but you might be able to counter a loss by timing that attack. At low BV's especially, being able to have a good idea that you might win init (or know that you will probably not win init) could provide some advantage. Significant? Probably not, relatively few games would hinge on such a tactic and have it succeed. Though a PHX kick at 3000 BV is a scary thing if you have a good idea that you could get the chance to deliver it. However, if the impact is so minimal as you illustrate, (which it really is) why bother with such a rule? I realize you aren't proposing the rule at all, you just illustrated it Tigershark. It is a level of complexity for no real gain and moves us further from official rules for no significant advantage to the environment.


A discussion on whether or not we consider the uptick in "swarm" armies or even just 5 or 6 unit armies a good thing is probably a more meaningful discussion. Btech's initiative gives some advantages to outnumbering your opponent (thus the special infantry rule here) I've generally found that the big strength disparity between a 4 unit army and a 5 or 6 unit army on an individual unit level, to more than equal out the initiative advantage. However, when you consider some units like the Saladin, some versions of the Bandit or Drillison hover tanks, perhaps that advantage means more. Front loaded or mid-loaded initiative would counter that quite a bit, but that too is off the table for the same reasons really. You could still move units without exposing the "killer" unit to danger. You could still force your opponent to try and kill more targets than they could reasonably take out. You can still exploit the relative cheapness and high lethality of hover tanks. We already have counters to this. Prex ammo, Choice in pilot leveling (Gunnery kills stuff dead) and hover vees are still fairly fragile and those armies are gimmicks, they need to have the right terrain and opponent. So we really don't need a special initiative rule except when the stars align and the hover swarm or weenie mech swarm hits the right enemy in the right situation. Then its mostly just good luck for one guy, and bad for the other. That's why we play the game right?

obese pigeon
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by obese pigeon » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:32 pm

TigerShark wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:The more I think about it. I tend to agree with Zerb. Part of the strategy of this game is learning to play with and without initiative. A lot of players only disengage when they don't have initiative. Learning to attack without it is an art, one sign of a good player. It's common enough to find opponents that only brawl or simply wait until they get initiative and jump in for the kick. ISC would allow for being able to predict the end of a streak and position to take advantage. I think ISC would encourage more of that sort of play. So that is perhaps a negative to ISC.
It really doesn't do as much as you think. And it doesn't kick in until the 3rd turn of init loss.

Turn 1 loss +0
Turn 2 loss +0
Turn 3 loss +1
Turn 4 loss +2

...In the end, not that big an effect except to prevent a full game of one player monopolizing init. Not trying to convince anyone of anything. But that's how it works.

TigerShark, im not sure if you remember a discussion we had.

I observed to you that a very experienced player from legends (i think) had rather reckless playstyle as opposed to the 3025 vets. His playstyle and lance construction suggested that he played with the expectation that he could make his opponent play his game. You replied that it was really a result of the environment that said player has a lot of experience in, an environment with init compensation, where generally you could play the game you wanted since well, init was half dependable ^^

So at the very least, ISC does have a learned effect on how one plays

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 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:04 pm

Zerberus wrote:I like having init streaks. I have the impression that a lot of players like having init streaks. That compensation thing makes init streaks less likely (still can and will happen anyway, of course - which will be cause for blaming RNG even more). Therefore I don't want that compensation thing.

Yes, I will be on the recieving end of init streaks because of that. It happens, so I suck it up and play on. Dealing with extremes in one direction or the other is fun for me. It's the same when using a leveled assault op army against some 4/5 (or worse) piloted zombie bricks. Something that decreases that amplitude takes away from my fun. It's really that easy.
I agree. Sometimes you lose init. Sometimes you lose all the inits. Sometimes that helps you lose. Sometimes you win inits. Sometimes you win all the inits.

Just remember that you r opponent is on the receiving end of what you're dishing out, so if you're winning init constantly be a gracious winner, and all should be good.

tl;dr version: it happens; deal with it.
"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: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:22 pm

obese pigeon wrote:
TigerShark, im not sure if you remember a discussion we had.

I observed to you that a very experienced player from legends (i think) had rather reckless playstyle as opposed to the 3025 vets. His playstyle and lance construction suggested that he played with the expectation that he could make his opponent play his game. You replied that it was really a result of the environment that said player has a lot of experience in, an environment with init compensation, where generally you could play the game you wanted since well, init was half dependable ^^

So at the very least, ISC does have a learned effect on how one plays
It certainly does. You can gamble on surging forward, banking on initiative going your way the next turn. i.e.: you lost init 5 turns in a row and receive a +2 bonus to your roll. Good time to run forward and get into position for an attack. Might not happen, but it's likely.

This is an effect of ISC for sure. But this also exists in the BT rules, under a different title: Banking the Initiative. (Yes, this functions different and I'm aware of that :) )

Nemesis
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nemesis » Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:54 pm

Put me down as a firm yes in the vote for ISC, though the servers I've played with it on didn't have +1 per 2 turns, it was +1 for every turn you lost after the first. This means that you would need to lose 2 turns in a row before you'd get a +1 on the 3rd turn, +2 on the 4th, etc. I think this is a much better rule for it.

People may argue about balance, but if you've lost init 4 turns in a row you pretty much *need* to win that 5th turn, and even that's not guaranteed, just slightly more likely. Also, when you eventually do win you go back to 0 and will lose 2 turns in a row again before you start to get another bonus. If your opponent would have rolled a 9 turn init streak, all this does is give you back about 2 turns of init and break up the streak a bit.

Why do I think it's a good rule? Because no single roll has a greater effect on the game than init. Lucky head shots or TACs may take out a unit, but init affects the entire army, giving a clear advantage in positioning, fire concentration, etc for that turn. We've all seen games where one player loses init for 7 (or more) turns in a row, they're far more common than they should be. When that happens, it essentially ends the game unless the losing player runs and hides, which isn't fun for anyone. A normal back and forth game affects both sides equally, but with that many lost inits they simply don't stand a chance trying to stand and fight.

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 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:51 pm

My suggestion: play tabletop where you lose init every turn (i.e. don;t roll, just proceed as though you had and you lost) and practice. As often as it happens, you'd think folks would learn to deal. It's frustrating, and I've had matches where it *was* the deciding factor, but it does that in your favor as often as it doesn't. The difference is knowing how to play when you do *not* get init.
"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")

User avatar
wildj79
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Texas

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by wildj79 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:48 pm

Nastyogre wrote: 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 know I'm a little late for this one, but I would just like to point out that there is a setting in the client to do this. We used it extensively on Warriors of Kerensky for Zellbrigen duels and it worked particularly well in that setting (oh how I miss WoK :cry:). But, as others have pointed out, it isn't a good fit for this server.

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Jackal » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:40 pm

I think we could very definitely vote on this issue in the Council of Six if enough players in the community are interested (that's the point of the Council, right? Player representation?).

That said, I'd like to offer my perspective on the subject.

I used to like Init Streak Compensation quite a lot. I, like everyone else on this server, have had zillions of battles where I lose 18 out of 20 initiative rolls and I'm on defense almost the entire time. I hated that, and felt that init streak comp was a good way of preventing that kind of "can't get a break" game. I often asked players if they were willing/interested in turning init streak on (remember, if both players agree to it, you can turn on init streak compensation at the beginning of a battle), and more often then not players would go along with it.

What I eventually realized, however, after playing many, many games with init streak compensation, is it changes play styles in ways I didn't really like. For example, with init streak compensation, when one player has lost 4 or 5 inits in a row, BOTH players start playing like the next round will probably go to the player on the losing streak. The player on the losing streak positions for an all-out attack the next round, while the player on the *winning streak* starts backing-off so they can be ready to defend next round. In other words, it *imposes an expectation* of what's going to happen and both players start behaving accordingly.

By contrast when you're playing with 'pure' init, both sides are constantly playing like they don't know what's going to happen with init the next round. You can't be overaggressive because you might lose init next round and your opponent will take advantage. But you also can't be underagressive, because you just might win and then you won't be ready to capitalize on the init if you DO win.

What I've realized after many, many games both with init streak comp and without, is I prefer the pure version. Yes it sucks to constantly lose init in some games, but on those occasions where you're able to pull out a victory even WITH repeated initiative loses, it makes the victory feel that much sweeter.
Last edited by Jackal on Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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 » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:47 pm

I've found the same thing though I've played with fewer. Ultimately, it may not be that different, it's just that it is different. The question is whether or not that different is better. My inclination is no, but I'm not entirely convinced one way or another.

Nemesis
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nemesis » Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:44 pm

Jackal wrote:For example, with init streak compensation, when one player has lost 4 or 5 inits in a row, BOTH players start playing like the next round will probably go to the player on the losing streak. The player on the losing streak positions for an all-out attack the next round, while the player on the *winning streak* starts backing-off so they can be ready to defend next round. In other words, it *imposes an expectation* of what's going to happen and both players start behaving accordingly.
This isn't entirely a bad thing. Just because someone's lost init 4-5 turns in a row and has a huge bonus is still no guarantee they'll win it the next round, especially if the RNG is hating them that much. If either side moves assuming that next turns init is already decided, they can be left badly out of position when it doesn't happen as expected.

Even if the player who's won init several turns in a row backs off so that there's less contact next round regardless of who wins, what it's done is provide the side being slaughtered a chance to catch their breath and reorganize, which is badly needed at that point.
Jackal wrote:By contrast when you're playing with 'pure' init, both sides are constantly playing like they don't know what's going to happen with init the next round. You can't be overaggressive because you might lose init next round and your opponent will take advantage. But you also can't be underagressive, because you just might win and then you won't be ready to capitalize on the init if you DO win.
Agreed. However, a streaky init can easily give one side a 1 mech advantage in a few turns, which can swing the game. The losing side will have a very tough time, and likely go down fast. Even if the other side gets a streak of their own, they gain less of an advantage from it since they're already down a unit, so they're still behind the person who got there first.

It's moot anyway, since we all know the RNG doesn't tend to give streaks back and forth, it always seems to be balanced rolls, or one side winning 80% of inits. Cursed RNG! ;)

celegance
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by celegance » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:00 am

obese pigeon wrote:
TigerShark wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:The more I think about it. I tend to agree with Zerb. Part of the strategy of this game is learning to play with and without initiative. A lot of players only disengage when they don't have initiative. Learning to attack without it is an art, one sign of a good player. It's common enough to find opponents that only brawl or simply wait until they get initiative and jump in for the kick. ISC would allow for being able to predict the end of a streak and position to take advantage. I think ISC would encourage more of that sort of play. So that is perhaps a negative to ISC.
It really doesn't do as much as you think. And it doesn't kick in until the 3rd turn of init loss.

Turn 1 loss +0
Turn 2 loss +0
Turn 3 loss +1
Turn 4 loss +2

...In the end, not that big an effect except to prevent a full game of one player monopolizing init. Not trying to convince anyone of anything. But that's how it works.

TigerShark, im not sure if you remember a discussion we had.

I observed to you that a very experienced player from legends (i think) had rather reckless playstyle as opposed to the 3025 vets. His playstyle and lance construction suggested that he played with the expectation that he could make his opponent play his game. You replied that it was really a result of the environment that said player has a lot of experience in, an environment with init compensation, where generally you could play the game you wanted since well, init was half dependable ^^

So at the very least, ISC does have a learned effect on how one plays
There are many many differences on legends as opposed to here. There are/were many players that used time intensive tactics on legends however those were fewer and far between as opposed to here. The server as a whole also tended to reward using what you get. Losses were also much less harsh on the individual player and if you lose enough you'd end up with a bv advantage over your opponent. The entire environment there was much less cutthroat.

Post Reply