209 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

LauLiao, on 07 November 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

IS autocannons have always been pinpoint, single shell. It stems from TT rules that had all AC damage going to single locations.

Well then why don't MWo lasers pinpoint damage? It is how it works with the table top rules.
Why don't LRMs apply damage in 5 point hits? This how the table top game does it.

The answer is several seemingly arbitrary design decisions were made that in the end upon execution create imbalancing effects.

I.S. ACs and PPCs do 100% of their damage to one spot in one shot.This is a vastly superior mechanics that exploits weaknesses in the armor mechanics.As a result Laser weapons are inferior mechanicly (or as I believe more in balance with the armor mechanics).

To make this problematic interaction between armor mechanics and pin point damage worse it seems the development team have embraced a faulty system as a means of balancing Clan vs I.S. autocannons.

[Bhael Fire]

Roland, on 10 November 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

In battletech, Machine Guns are AC2's, with extremely limited range. The do exactly the same type of damage to mechs. Period. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong.

Are you addressing me?

I made no such claim. I was just pointing out the difference between an AC and a machine gun for theta123.

AC's fire large-caliber (usually over 20mm) high explosive armor-piercing shells...whereas machine guns usually only fire bullets. It's a loose generalization to differentiate the two types weapons.

[Roland]

Bhael Fire, on 10 November 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Are you addressing me?

I made no such claim. I was just pointing out the difference between an AC and a machine gun for theta123.

AC's fire large-caliber (usually over 20mm) high explosive armor-piercing shells...whereas machine guns usually only fire bullets. It's a loose generalization to differentiate the two types weapons.

No, that's not right.

[Bhael Fire]

Roland, on 11 November 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

No, that's not right.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Autocannon

[Nightmare1]

I never liked how ACs were like artillery for Mechs. I really wish that they were like the books where they fired continuous volleys, machine-gun style.

...Lousy TT rules.

Viktor Drake, on 07 November 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Well that depends. If you read the novels, ACs actually fire a stream of shells.

Exactly! Canon before TT!!!

WarHippy, on 07 November 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Yes, but that is literary fluff. A single shot is the way it should be and the way it should remain.

I disagree. That "literary fluff" is the canonical and correct way to implement them. The TT rules are mere board game rules designed to facilitate turn-based play. Any such should be discarded in favor of more dynamic mechanics to suit a real-time mecha such as MWO, and to capture the spirit of the books; especially the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy!

[Vassago Rain]

Bhael Fire, on 11 November 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Autocannon

Battletech 'machineguns' aren't real world machineguns. They're macross 'machineguns,' which aren't real world machineguns either.





They fire the blue ones.

Oh, and also, heatsinks aren't heatsinks, but heatpumps. This is what happens when a game is made in the 80s by a bunch of people who learned everything they know of guns and tech from watching Arnold movies and star trek.

[Nightmare1]

Roland, on 10 November 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

For instance, the laughable notion that MG's in battletech were just meant for anti-infantry weapons. This is clearly false, since machine guns predate the existence of infantry units in the battletech ruleset.

In battletech, Machine Guns are AC2's, with extremely limited range. The do exactly the same type of damage to mechs. Period. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong.

Actually, I think you're a bit off there. While that may be a rule or something in TT, that's not the way it is in the books. Canonically, MGs are often described as 50-caliber with armor-piercing rounds, often coupled with small lasers, and equipped for the purpose of fighting infantry and infantry power armor (or Mechs if the pilot is in a bind). They are most definitely not AC/2s; I don't know where you got that notion.

Since you say "ruleset," I'm assuming that all your info is coming from the TT rulebooks. I would caution you about that; those are just rules for a board game that represents just one spin-off facet of the BT/MW universe. The books are, and should always remain, the primary source of canonical material for these discussions. I recommend you get ahold of some, particularly the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy, and do a bit of reading. You'll be amazed at how different BT actually is when you compare it to TT or MWO.

[Vassago Rain]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

Actually, I think you're a bit off there. While that may be a rule or something in TT, that's not the way it is in the books. Canonically, MGs are often described as 50-caliber with armor-piercing rounds, often coupled with small lasers, and equipped for the purpose of fighting infantry and infantry power armor (or Mechs if the pilot is in a bind). They are most definitely not AC/2s; I don't know where you got that notion.

Since you say "ruleset," I'm assuming that all your info is coming from the TT rulebooks. I would caution you about that; those are just rules for a board game that represents just one spin-off facet of the BT/MW universe. The books are, and should always remain, the primary source of canonical material for these discussions. I recommend you get ahold of some, particularly the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy, and do a bit of reading. You'll be amazed at how different BT actually is when you compare it to TT or MWO.

They're not 50 caliber, but 20mm.

Even if they are 50 caliber, the whole notion of half ton guns mounted on 35+ ton vehicles firing 50 caliber in the far future, with no range, is absurd. I already covered this in my post above, though.

Stop bringing up bad fanfiction while you're at it. If the books are to be believed, every person in battletech land is a saturday morning cartoon villain, who's always got a glass of brandy nearby, and uses such immensely powerful tactics as 'switching to long ranged weapons when they know the enemy will be fighting with brawling weapons.'

Then there's that whole 'muh heatsinks'-problem...

[Nightmare1]

Vassago Rain, on 11 November 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

They're not 50 caliber, but 20mm.

Even if they are 50 caliber, the whole notion of half ton guns mounted on 35+ ton vehicles firing 50 caliber in the far future, with no range, is absurd. I already covered this in my post above, though.

Stop bringing up bad fanfiction while you're at it. If the books are to be believed, every person in battletech land is a saturday morning cartoon villain, who's always got a glass of brandy nearby, and uses such immensely powerful tactics as 'switching to long ranged weapons when they know the enemy will be fighting with brawling weapons.'

Then there's that whole 'muh heatsinks'-problem...

I read a few where they were 20mm and a few where they were .50. The .50s were more prevalent though.

Also, .50s are hardly a half ton. They actually weigh considerably less, enabling multiple MGs to be bundled together if needed, or mounted individually at little cost to tonnage. Their purpose, again, was anti-infantry.

What do you call fan fiction? When I refer to canon, I refer to the officially recognized BattleTech books.

[Y E O N N E]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

I never liked how ACs were like artillery for Mechs. I really wish that they were like the books where they fired continuous volleys, machine-gun style.

...Lousy TT rules.




Exactly! Canon before TT!!!




I disagree. That "literary fluff" is the canonical and correct way to implement them. The TT rules are mere board game rules designed to facilitate turn-based play. Any such should be discarded in favor of more dynamic mechanics to suit a real-time mecha such as MWO, and to capture the spirit of the books; especially the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy!

Inner Sphere ACs do fire a constant stream...if you hold the trigger.

You do realize that the rounds in TT are fired over a 10-second interval, right? Your stream of rounds could actually end up looking about as densely populated as they do in MWO, depending on how many rounds the "burst" fires over that 10 second interval. The difference is that, in MWO, each round does 5 points while in TT, each round does considerably less and makes absolutely no sense for it.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 10 November 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Two of my best friends, Common Sense and Logic. You should meet them, we should totally set that up


Yes, for playing (Classic) BattleTech the board game, that's certainly true. That's the pecking order of the rules for that game.

But we're not talking about the rules for CBT the board game, are we? We're talking about a completely different game called MWO, and we're talking about how that game should be implementing the rules and lore of the BT universe in general.

And for that, it makes no sense to put the CBT rules on top, because they're chock full of simplifications and limitations that depend on the format of a kitchen-table sized game meant to be played in a couple of hours.

So we have to fall back on the non-rules, the lore, to see how things really work.

An autocannon in the BT universe is basically a "giant machine-gun" (even by your definition, since that's in the Tech Manual, page 207) firing bursts of 3 - 100 projectiles per "shot", "round", "cassette", whatever you want to call it, in 10 seconds.

This is implemented in the rules for CBT the board game as a single to-hit roll, because we don't want to spend all night rolling autocannon to-hit rolls, we'd rather get on with the actual game play.

That single roll, though, represents a burst of anything from 3 - 100 individual rounds, because that's what the lore says an autocannon fires. It does not mean that autocannons fire a single projectile!

And with computers doing the heavy lifting, there's simply no sense in keeping a simplification made for the board game - computers are fast enough to do several thousand to-hit rolls in the same time you or I can make a single one.

There. Common Sense and Logic, meet Joe Mallan, an old and stubborn gamer. Joe, meet Common Sense and Logic, two of my best friends. I'm sure you three will get on like a house on fire!

I know em well St. Common sense and Logic are good friends. The point is, it is strictly Fluff that says ACs are firing rapid bursts. Only the way writers are writing the story, not playing the game. Canon rules have ACs damage as single point of impact.

stjobe, on 10 November 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

Just to show that it's not as easy as "(machine)guns fire bullets, (auto)cannons fire shells", here's a picture of a .22LR shell:

We call that a Glazer safety round and is a variation on a Shotgun Shell. Are Shot Guns Cannons?

[Vassago Rain]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

I read a few where they were 20mm and a few where they were .50. The .50s were more prevalent though.

Also, .50s are hardly a half ton. They actually weigh considerably less, enabling multiple MGs to be bundled together if needed, or mounted individually at little cost to tonnage. Their purpose, again, was anti-infantry.

What do you call fan fiction? When I refer to canon, I refer to the officially recognized BattleTech books.

Yes, that's what I call fanfiction. I do the same with 'official' 40k novels and 'books,' too. If it's not listed in one of the source books, it's poorly written fanfiction by someone who can't write well enough to get an actual sci-fi book published.

No, CBT machineguns aren't anti-infantry. They have a damage bonus against infantry. I think this is what happens when you accept poorly written sci-fi novels as some kind of source material for your setting. You get confused.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

I never liked how ACs were like artillery for Mechs. I really wish that they were like the books where they fired continuous volleys, machine-gun style.

...Lousy TT rules.




Exactly! Canon before TT!!!




I disagree. That "literary fluff" is the canonical and correct way to implement them. The TT rules are mere board game rules designed to facilitate turn-based play. Any such should be discarded in favor of more dynamic mechanics to suit a real-time mecha such as MWO, and to capture the spirit of the books; especially the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy!

And this is also now Labled a BattleTech game. And BattleTech games have a single point of impact for ACs. The Board Game uses single roles for up to 20 L-BX pellets, Single rolls for SRM missiles to hit. Adding a Cluster roll for ACs would not have been out of line if ACs were meant to be burst damage instead of solid slug damage.

[Cyberiad]

I wish the clan ACs were also single shot. The screen shake from them is too much. I know some people think it was an attempt at balancing clan weapons by making the weapons spread damage more but it really isn't, the ability to hit lights easier with multiple shots and the screen shake basically cancels out any balancing that has to do with spreading damage. If they wanted to balance clan ACs they should have just increased the cooldown for the weapons. Cooldown is a simple and easy way to balance weapons, no need for burst fire. Single shots would also relieve some stress for both client and server. I'm sure everyone would appreciate better game performance and server hit detection. The clan LRMs fall into the same boat, the fact that they stream out puts ridiculous amounts of screen shake to those getting fired on. Clan LRMs should just have been balanced with cooldown instead and LRMs should fire the same with for both IS and clan.

Edited by Silicon Life, 11 November 2014 - 07:58 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 11 November 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Yes, that's what I call fanfiction. I do the same with 'official' 40k novels and 'books,' too. If it's not listed in one of the source books, it's poorly written fanfiction by someone who can't write well enough to get an actual sci-fi book published.

No, CBT machineguns aren't anti-infantry. They have a damage bonus against infantry. I think this is what happens when you accept poorly written sci-fi novels as some kind of source material for your setting. You get confused.

Have you read the Fluff in a BattleTech Rulebook(Not fanfiction)? It defines Machine guns as the "Quintessential Anti-Infantry Weapon, Also able of inflicting significant damage to Mech armor". 2 damage is not significant unless you are a lightly armored Mech.

[Ultimax]

Lykaon, on 10 November 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Well then why don't MWo lasers pinpoint damage?

They can be pinpoint, they just aren't front loaded.

Lykaon, on 10 November 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

The answer is several seemingly arbitrary design decisions were made that in the end upon execution create imbalancing effects.

I.S. ACs and PPCs do 100% of their damage to one spot in one shot.

It isn't arbitrary.

Lasers are hitscan, no travel time, no projectile drop - those are their advantages. Their drawback is burntime.

ACs/PPCs are front loaded, with travel time (both) and projectile drop for ACs. Those are their drawbacks, their advantage is front loaded damage.



That you are even bringing up PPCs at the moment when the game is mostly a laser-fest is a bit of a head scratcher.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 11 November 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Vassago Rain, on 11 November 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Yes, that's what I call fanfiction. I do the same with 'official' 40k novels and 'books,' too. If it's not listed in one of the source books, it's poorly written fanfiction by someone who can't write well enough to get an actual sci-fi book published.

No, CBT machineguns aren't anti-infantry. They have a damage bonus against infantry. I think this is what happens when you accept poorly written sci-fi novels as some kind of source material for your setting. You get confused.

So...what you're saying, is that if the book series that says "BattleTech" and "Fafsa" doesn't agree with you, then it's fan-fiction?

I mean really, they basically took what was just a board game and spun it into a complex and intriguing universe. Since a board game is really just a game, it is hard to put a continuity to it like you can with books. Though I recognize that the original BT TT premiered before the novels, it makes more sense to accept the novels as canon because of their continuity.

Granted, some of the authors are side-story fan-fiction writers like Blaine Lee Pardoe. However, others, like Stackpole, provide a continuation and canonical interpretation of the series that could (and I think should) be accepted as the canonical backbone for the video games. They would translate better anyways since the TT rules are for static, turn-base play instead of dynamic, real-time play. There is also significantly more skill and less chance in MWO than in TT, since players directly control their machines rather than a dice.

As far as MGs go, it makes more sense for them to be anti-infantry; in this the books did well. To equate MGs to AC/2s is rather silly, even for TT.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

And this is also now Labled a BattleTech game. And BattleTech games have a single point of impact for ACs. The Board Game uses single roles for up to 20 L-BX pellets, Single rolls for SRM missiles to hit. Adding a Cluster roll for ACs would not have been out of line if ACs were meant to be burst damage instead of solid slug damage.

Remind me of that the next time I'm searching my cockpit for that pesky dice that keeps falling under my seat whenever I roll it during combat.

For the umpteenth time, this IS NOT TT! This is a dynamic, real-time game that can afford to innovate and break the shackles of TT dice-play. Let's get some real systems here and quit chaining ourselves to something that does not translate well into an online mecha shooter.

I love board games, but I am a realist. They do not make a good basis for an online video game, period.

[Strum Wealh]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

Actually, I think you're a bit off there. While that may be a rule or something in TT, that's not the way it is in the books. Canonically, MGs are often described as 50-caliber with armor-piercing rounds, often coupled with small lasers, and equipped for the purpose of fighting infantry and infantry power armor (or Mechs if the pilot is in a bind). They are most definitely not AC/2s; I don't know where you got that notion.

Since you say "ruleset," I'm assuming that all your info is coming from the TT rulebooks. I would caution you about that; those are just rules for a board game that represents just one spin-off facet of the BT/MW universe. The books are, and should always remain, the primary source of canonical material for these discussions. I recommend you get ahold of some, particularly the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy, and do a bit of reading. You'll be amazed at how different BT actually is when you compare it to TT or MWO.

Most descriptions indicate most MGs as being in the 20mm range, with the .50 caliber (12.7mm) MGs being the among the smallest known MG caliber.

In other words, typical BT MGs are closer relations to the M61 Vulcan and the Mauser MG 213, than to the M2 Browning.

By contrast, the average AC/2 (typically ~30mm) is closer to the likes of the ADEN, the GAU-8, and the RARDEN.

Nebfer, on 08 August 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Parden the spelling, but this is from my raw files... (txt files)

 
 
================================
Machineguns
================================
20mm Gatling			  = 20mm (TRO 3039) skorpion tank entry
M100					  = 12.7mm (leithal hearitage) -Phawk
Johnston minigun		  = 20mm (temptation by war) Ranger VV1 -discribed as caseless (ch 14)
Scattergun				= 20mm (temptation by war) DI Schmitt
22mm Gatling			  = 22mm (TRO 3075) JES 1 entry
================================
Class 2 Autocannons
================================
Whirlwind-L			   = 32mm (Binding force) BlackJack BJ-1
Whirlwind-L			   = 30mm (Threads of ambition) Blackjack BJ-1
SarLon					= 30mm (TRO 3026) Warrior VTOL
Thor RAC-2				= 40mm (TRO 3058) Warrior VTOL
Mydron Model D-rf (Ultra) = 20mm (Imminent Crisis) Jagermech III  
Mydron Model D			= 30mm (Threads of ambition) Jagermech
Defiance Shredder LBX	 = 20mm (Fortress republic) -Catapult
================================
Class 5 Autocannons
================================
GM Nova 5  Ultra	  = 50mm (Binding force) -cataphract
GM Nova 5  Ultra	  = 40mm (Illusions of victory) -Cataphract
GM Whirlwind		  = 120mm (Thunder ridge & Wolves on the border) -Marauder
GM Whirlwind		  = 50mm (killing field) -Marauder
Armstrong J11		 = 80mm or 90mm (Thunder ridge) -Shawdow Hawk
Imperator-A		   = 80mm (Price of Glory) -Riflemen
Whirlwind			 = 60mm (Price of glory) -Wolverine
Whirlwind			 = 90mm (Wolves on the border) -Wolverine
Imperator Ultra AC-5  = 80mm (Storms of fate) -Vulcan & Daikyu
Armstrong AC-5		= 50mm (Double blind) -Clint
Armstrong AC-5		= 105mm (TRO 3075) -Merkava Hvy Tank
Pontiac Light		 = 40mm (Illusions of victory) -Striker mech
Snake killer LAC5	 = 60mm (Battlecorps) -Shadowhawk-9D
Mydron Model RC RAC5  = 50mm (A call to arms & fortress republic) -Legionnaire & Rifleman
Mydron Tornado  RAC5  = 50mm (By Temptations and By War) -DI Schmitt
Defiance type J AC-5  = 75mm (Heir to the dragon) -Zeus 6S
================================
Class 10 Autocannons
================================
Luxor-D				= 80mm (Price of glory, Ghost of winter) -Centuien
Mydron Excel UAC	   = 80mm (Patriots and tyrents) -Enforcer
Mydron Excel LBX	   = 80mm (Patriots and tyrents) -Dragon Fire
Mydron Excel LBX	   = 80mm (Illusions of victory)  -Cataphract
Defiance Disintegrator?= 100mm (end game) -Banshee
Mydron Model B		 = 80mm (Flash point) -Bushwacker
Federated AC-10		= 80mm (Flash point) -Enforcer
Imperator Code Red	 = 100mm (Flashpoint) -Challenger MBT
KaliYama			   = 80mm (Illusions of victory) -Orion
Imperator Code Red	 = 80mm (Illusions of victory) -Emperor
Imperator-B			= 80mm (Warrior en Guard) Urbanmech (implyed to be similer in caliber as the Riflemen)
================================
Class 20 Autocannons
================================
Death Giver				= 100mm (Heir to the dragon) -Atlas
Pontiac 100				= 100mm (Heir to the dragon) -Victor
Armstrong				  = 120mm (binding force) -Von Luckner MBT
Chemjet					= 185mm (TRO 3026) -Demolisher I tank
Crusher SH				 = 150mm (TRO 3026) -Hetzer Assault gun (or 120mm Threads of ambition)
Defiance Thunder Ultra	 = 120mm (Patriots and Tyrants) -Blitzkrig
Defiance Disintegrator LBX = 120mm (Patriots and Tyrants) -Barghest -Illusions of victory & The Dying time as well
Kali Yama Big Bore		 = 120mm (Threads of ambition) -Thunder
Tomodzuru				  = 180mm (Era Report 3052) -Hunchback
Luxuor Devastator		  = 120mm (Storms of fate) -Typhoon UAV
Death Giver				= 120mm (Storms of Fate) -King Crab

================================
Unknown type
================================
Jagermech "500mm" AC (Double blind) -most likely a typo
Mackie 5S AC-5 = 110mm (Birth of a King)
Jagermech 7F RAC-5 = 80mm
Templar omni, Grayson config AC-5 = 40mm (Imminent Crisis)
Blackjack omni LBX-10 = 80mm

Clan
Type 9 UAC 10 = 75mm
Type 10 UAC 20 = 120mm
Type 20 UAC 20 = 200mm
Type 25 UAC 2 = 50mm
Type 31 UAC 5 = 40mm
Type Kov LBX-10 = 75 or 150mm (same book two diffrent vehicles)
Type Covr-X 40mm

Wolves on the border LRMs = 75mm catapult ch 19
Gauss rifle = 10cm -starlord ch 2
infantry HMG "spanner" 15mm (not sure where this one is from)
Shrapnel mentions HE shells, a gray death book also mentions HE rounds...
blood legacy, unknown vtol, door mounted rotary 12.7mm MG
The Dying time, jeep mg = 13mm 43 gram -recount of thunder rift (1500 RPM)
temptation by war, ryoken II MGs = 20mm (likely AC-2s, as I do not think it has MGs)
patriots stand, generic gun trucks, 20mm "Gatling" MGs
flight of the falcon, mining mech mod, twin 50 cal MGs
Their are a few more but this is most of what I found, as one can see their is a few contradictions.

[FupDup]

Ultimatum X, on 11 November 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

...
It isn't arbitrary.

Lasers are hitscan, no travel time, no projectile drop - those are their advantages. Their drawback is burntime.
...

Don't forget low tonnage and infinite ammo.

Edited by FupDup, 11 November 2014 - 08:53 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

So...what you're saying, is that if the book series that says "BattleTech" and "Fafsa" doesn't agree with you, then it's fan-fiction?

I mean really, they basically took what was just a board game and spun it into a complex and intriguing universe. Since a board game is really just a game, it is hard to put a continuity to it like you can with books. Though I recognize that the original BT TT premiered before the novels, it makes more sense to accept the novels as canon because of their continuity.

Granted, some of the authors are side-story fan-fiction writers like Blaine Lee Pardoe. However, others, like Stackpole, provide a continuation and canonical interpretation of the series that could (and I think should) be accepted as the canonical backbone for the video games. They would translate better anyways since the TT rules are for static, turn-base play instead of dynamic, real-time play. There is also significantly more skill and less chance in MWO than in TT, since players directly control their machines rather than a dice.

As far as MGs go, it makes more sense for them to be anti-infantry; in this the books did well. To equate MGs to AC/2s is rather silly, even for TT.



Remind me of that the next time I'm searching my cockpit for that pesky dice that keeps falling under my seat whenever I roll it during combat.

For the umpteenth time, this IS NOT TT! This is a dynamic, real-time game that can afford to innovate and break the shackles of TT dice-play. Let's get some real systems here and quit chaining ourselves to something that does not translate well into an online mecha shooter.

I love board games, but I am a realist. They do not make a good basis for an online video game, period.

I'm a Gamer. Have been for over three decades. I realize it is not TT, I don't have the minis on my table when I am playing. however I am playing MW:O Because it is related to the TT game. In fact if not for the TT Game There would be no books to provide fluff to the game system, there would be no MechWarrior Video games. Auto Cannons have been single shot Weapons in all the MechWarrior Games I have played unless they were Ultra Cannons. So I can even use that to support my stance that ACs do not need to change to make the game better.