Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:
of course and that's the entire job of the GM, to ensure that no matter what the player has, there's a fairly balanced force against them.
I've run several campaigns for players that wanted to start a new merc unit. We went straight from the merc handbook for generation rules and they started with a bunch of "trash" because that's just it, they started poor. I ensured, as the GM, that the forces they faced were challenging but balanced.
The min-max crowd was generally more of "i designed this 5 AC20 100 ton mech because it's "fun" to which most any GM running anythign more than a one-off for funsies type game is going to just say "no" to.
That's also similar to what we have here.
You have the min-max and casual crowds that are concerned with nothing more than stomping around shooting people.The min maxers "fun" is a high kdr. So if they don't get to max out their mechs according to the absolute highest DPS, etc. then they're not having "fun"
The casual crowd is more about stomping around shooting stuff. As long as the game is fairly close they're happy. They're not having "fun" when they get involved in a quick stomp
Then you have the "TT" crowd, that wants that slower gameplay and more thinking involved above "click bang shoot die!" and they're not having "fun" unless they're involved in a slower paced tactical battle.
The first two groups have their game styles
The third is still waiting...
I don't think 5 AC/20 is a good example of a min-max build in TT, because for one that's not even possible due to critical slot shortages (even with crit splitting). More common meta builds were probably things like massed-MG boats, ML boats, PPCs and/or Gauss, maybe some massed-LRM5 boats.
As for the "three crowds" breakdown, it seems to be overgeneralizing a little bit... For one thing, quick stomps are generally due to a severe skill mismatch of the players, and partly because of the no-respawn "attrition" nature of the game.
Also, the "slower paced" "tactical" thing isn't mutually exclusive with "min-max." In fact, min-max is actually a form of tactics if you dig deep down. Modifying one's loadout to suit the map/role/whatever you're intending for does in fact take "tactical thought," or at least it would if the game were better balanced. Min-max is essentially a dirty way of saying "problem solving." It would be like trying to fit puzzle pieces into place.
In an ideal world, somebody who is modifying their loadout would be weighing all sorts of choices against each other, with no clear "best" choice. Do you want an extra heatsink, or would another ton of ammo be better for this situation? Maybe an extra Medium Laser, or some more armor, engine? Will this Commando or Locust be a better unit for achieving the objectives than your Highlander this round? Do you want to provide indirect fire support with some LRM racks, or brawl it up with Pulse Lasers?
When all of the choices are competing with each other, with no clear "best" or "optimal" answer, "min-maxing" stops being the bad thing it's infamous for.People would/should be experimenting constantly, trying to find the best fit for their playstyle or the battle they're about to go into. And you'd be seeing a lot of totally random and new builds as a result, which would greatly increase the game's replay value because you wouldn't be able to guess most of the red team's composition before you even face them.
Min-max only leads to cookie-cutter boring crap like PPC + Gauss boating if there's a big balancing issue present. If the choices were "asymmetrically equal" (that is, they have the same overall value but totally different playstyles), then people wouldn't be constantly choosing specific, exact combinations every single damn time...
The reason why it was such a big issue in TT is because, quite frankly, TT was intentionally designed by FASA such that very specific playstyles/mechs/weapons/etc would be inherently superior to others. Why did they do this? Heck if I know, maybe they wanted to simulate "real war" where absolutely nothing is remotely fair/balanced, maybe they honestly thought they were doing the right thing and didn't even expect the results they got. They attempted to "balance" the superiority of certain things by making those things really expensive, uncommon/rare, and/or giving them a high BattleValue...but in the end certain things were still "the best."
You can debate which specific things were the best, but it's hard to deny the overall concept that some things were in fact outright better than others in BT. And this is why min-maxing was a problem there...because it led to the same annoying cookie-cutter builds every time like massed Medium Lasers.
Having all the options being "asymmetrically equal" doesn't mean they need to all have the same DPS, or range, or heat, or any of those other stats...it just means that all playstyles, mechs, etc. need to be viable against competent opponents. Somebody should be able to create a totally whackjob loadout like Flamers + LBX + Narc and not be blatantly outclassed by current FoTM builds. All of the mechs and guns and stuff should be able to contribute to their team's victory in a meaningful and rewarding way.
And even if we aren't able to make all choices on a "level playing field," we should at the very least minimize the degree of superiority of the best choices to a very small margin, so that's it's more of a playstyle/preference choice than "take this loadout or you aren't going to win" kind of situation. If we do either of those things, then people trying to improve their robots will cease to be an issue. If anything, it would become a thing of beauty if players were constantly trying out new options.
Edited by FupDup, 04 August 2014 - 09:03 PM.
2
