|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 15-Mar-2002 01:29 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
  |
|
Time for purely academic look at Battletech game design.
One of the common themes that seems to run rampant on every Btech board in existence is that of munchkinism. It seems everyone has their own idea of what munchkinism is, whether it is good or bad, and how to deal with it. Unfortunately most people prefer to look at "munchkinism" as a character flaw or absence of an abstract sense of the game universe (a.k.a. the "feel" of the universe). I think that is a poor way of looking at it; and I would like to propose a more quantitative definition of munchkinism and look at the roots of it in Battletech.
One observation I have made about Battletech is that it seems to have a higher number of "munchkins" than any other system I have watched or played. In fact, in most games I have been involved in such concepts as something being too good or effective are non-existent. If something kicks butt, then you use it. Why is it, then, that using that approach to Battletech is so looked down upon? I believe the reason is that Battletech is unusually susceptible to being overrun by those who do this. As a game store clerk in San Luis Obispo said, "Battletech is very munchkin-able." The problem then seems not to be with those who would use every low-down mean spirited tactic to gain every once of advantage they can (most games actually promote this), but an inherent flaw in the design of the game itself.
To look at this, let me first set forth a definition for munchkinism: Munchkinism is the use of a single or small set of tactics to repeatedly throw the game in a certain player's or team's favor. In Battletech this usually manifests itself in two ways:
(1)using TC/Pulse/C3 combos to make to-hit rolls as low as possible
(2)jumping far distances each turn to make to-hit rolls as high as possible (usually involves jumping from woods hex to woods hex)
From playing and observing other games I believe a reasonable cut-off point for when a tactic is munchy is:
(1)if it repeatedly increases to-hit rolls for the attacker above 75% chance of hitting (for case #1)
(2)if it repeatedly drops to-hit rolls for the attacker below 25% chance of hitting (case #2)
*Note that range is not evaluated in these values, as anything acting equally on both the defender and attacker can be cancelled out.
I propose that the main reason Battletech is so vulnerable to munchkin tactics is because of the statistics behind the to-hit roll: the normal distribution created by using 2D6. Using a two-dice method for evaluating to-hits creates a curve which causes sharp drops in probabilities as required values deviate from the mean. For example: as to-hit rolls become 10+ the probability of a successful hit drops to 16.67%. Conversely, if a single-dice system was used (D12), the probability to-hit on a 10+ is 25%. At 12+ the 2D6 system has a 2.77% chance of success, while the D12 system has a 8.33% chance of success.
The differences between the two systems may not seem like much, but realize that the extreme values of the 2D6 system grant greater rewards for tactics that accelerate in a single area. Thus it pays to be munchy.
In conclusion, I think Battletech could use some serious reworking given its reputation as a munchkin game. People need to realize that munchkinism is a game-mechanics problem and requires something more than a fluff solution. FanPro would do good to take a critical look at the underlying system.
P.S.: I don't really think Btech needs all that much fixing. This is mainly my response to those unguided individuals who see any form of optimization as "munchy."
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8075
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 06:19 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Number 2 isn't munchie, it's a legitimate tactic.
Mechs that jump large distances to gain a high to-hit mod usually have low amounts of armor.
Would anyone consider a mech with max armor munchie? Of course not. So if a mech's major defensive ability is avoiding being hit then that also can't be munchie.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
Gunslinger Patch
Royal Black Watch Regiment
Major
Joined: 04-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 1611
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 06:47 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
I know what you mean. I played a guy last year all of whose mech designs had nothing but pulse lasers and lots of jump jets on them. His whole made up Clan used only a single type of weapon, the pulse laser.
On the other hand my own made up empire maxes out all mechs, which produces one ferocious Locust. (also one expensive Locust). However, my mechs have a philosophy behind them. My custom empire has rejected the redundancy of hordes of new designs that do the same thing some older design already does and instead upgrades to the max older designs that try to stay true to original weapons mix.
They use the XL engine, FF armor and endo, and double heat sinks and max armor wherever possible. I cram on all the stuff I can. But almost all of my mechs also mount my custom ECM unit, which means none of your mechs will be able to talk on the radio and your active probes won't find me and your own ECM won't hide you from me.
Much of my stuff is as good as the Clans, some worse, some better. In the realm of ECM my empire is the clear superior. But in the realm of weapons is still not as good overall. Better computers and electronics are what gives my troops their edge.
What makes it look munchy is the way it is used, which I believe (in terms of how they fight vs. how I fight) makes my troops the winners of the battle far more often than not.
These troops are the descendants of Clan Wolverine and the 16th SLDF Army Corps. The combined arms that made the SLDF the masters of the Inner Sphere battlefield is their religion. When you meet a company of my mechs, they have all the modern tech that can be crammed onto them. They will also have a couple of mechs or vehicles with Arrow launchers and three tons of missiles and maybe a lance of mobile artillery supporting them from off-map. (And they all have integral TAG to guide indirect and guided missile fire) This mech company will usually be working with a mech-inf company mounted in APCs that can take heavy hits and dish out noticeable amount of damage and there will often be a lance of VTOLs lurking in the area who can be called upon for support fire if needed. And the infantry themselves are good enough to lay some hurt on any nearby mech or vehicle with the 1-shot disposable SRMs every man carries two of into battle with him (think LAW rockets).
Yes, it has all the super modfied munchy element to it. But it has a plan, a coherent purpose that is larger than just the current tabletop in question. This is often called munch, but I think is not. Real munch has no plan save for the current plan to win the current battle. Real munch spends much time designing new maxed out mechs, but little time writing new and decently researched fluff text.
[ This Message was edited by: Gunslinger Patch on 2002-03-15 06:57 ]
_________________
"Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those with guns..." -Thomas Jefferson
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 13:38 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2002-03-15 06:19, chihawk wrote:
Number 2 isn't munchie, it's a legitimate tactic.
|
|
Since the entire "tactic" is nothing more than trying to push a single statistical curve in your favor, I see no reason why people who try the same thing by different means should then be called munchy. #1 is no less legitimate than #2, as they both just try to maximize a single variable.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6081
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 14:38 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Yes, but one is a tactical move. If the player doesn't know it, or isn't smart enough to utilize it, then they won't. The entire point of BattleTech is to make your to-hit number higher then your opponents. And using movement tactics has nothing to do with being munchie.
As for #1, I don't think that is always munchy either. Does anyone view the Viper as a Munchie design? I certainly don't and it's loaded with pulse lasers and a TC.
There is no way to put into numbers what munchie is and what munchie isn't. It's different for everybody. Throwing 14 SSRM-4s on a 'mech is considered munchy by me.
If you're just playing for fun, who cares, it's only a game. If you are in a universe environment, then the person running it should do a better job so such 'mech designs aren't developed.
Anyway, I'm getting off the soap-box now, but it's just my opinion that calling a tactical movement munchie is just wrong. Heck, I guess the only way to play the game then is to stand out in the open and not move.
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
CampingCarl
Free Worlds League
Master Sergeant
Joined: 24-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 176
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 15:33 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
| In a real battle wouldn't you run from one spot of cover to another batch of cover? No one would stand out in the open. That is just common sense. If you can get to cover and dont use then you should get shot for using what is available to you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Horhiro
Draconis Combine
Samurai
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1625
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 19:46 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
I fail to see how a game such as BattleTech can be considered more munchy than any other games out there. MTG as a case in point where you can "buy" the best cards/combinations to become practically unbeatable.(which is why they use sealed deck tourneys to really determine a players ability)
What I have seen, is that BTech munchy players are quickly ganged up on and decimated by veteran players, thus nullifying their presence at gaming tables.
Also utilizing BV and adjustments for gunnery/piloting skills can generally downplay any design's munchiness. A 2/3 Victor should have an equal chance of beating a 4/5 BlackHawk-Ku. If your only fighting your opponents based on weight or cost, of course will have a lot of lopsided battles.
I agree with Mordel and others that movement is key to your tactical success. As Chihawk said especially because you're probably light on armor. Those type of tactics aren't munchy, they are solid tried and true methods.
I can't think of any published designs which I would consider munchy. Obviously players are creating some insane designs, but who said you have to play against them, or that you can't beat them if you're playing the same exact Mech?
_________________
"I have lived my life trying to be a virtuous man. The Dragon admires tenacity, and the code of the samurai upholds it as well." -Minobu Tetsuhara
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 20:44 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Quote:
|
Anyway, I'm getting off the soap-box now, but it's just my opinion that calling a tactical movement munchie is just wrong.
|
|
What equipment a person chooses or operates is just as much a part of tactics as the actual position. People think moving all around the board is "tactics", but using large numbers of PPCs or pulse lasers is not "tactics." That's an error. Who is to say what is and isn't a "tactic."
That's why I proposed a quantitative definition. If a single variable X is used repeatedly to throw a particular probability into region {Y}, then that variable can be considered "munchy." Battletech can be reduced to nothing but a bunch of numbers, which make no real distinction between their fluff origins. So it doesn't matter if one is a form of movement or the other a weapon, if it operates on the game in the same way it's munchy (by this definition).
_________________
Gangrene
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2002-03-15 20:47 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8075
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 15-Mar-2002 22:34 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
We've already had this discussion before, and no one's mind it going to be changed by anything anyone posts.
So unless someone has a new point to make I think we're all just going to have to agree to disagree.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 16-Mar-2002 02:55 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Yup . . . well sorta. I think you guys missed what I was trying to do.
_________________
Gangrene
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2002-03-16 15:35 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rarich
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 991
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 16-Mar-2002 23:10 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Your statistical point is taken. The normal "smooth" bell curve is disrupted by the 2d6 standard so that at the extremes there is a big fall off. Are you suggesting altering the system to a single dice standard that would even out the fall offs more? Or adding in some rules somewhere about "processing lag" or "bus Overload" caused by tooo many of the same weapons plugging up either the Processor assigned to that task, or the databus only having so much messaging capability for that weapon?
_________________
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side & a dark side, and strings also lie under it all.
Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8075
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 16-Mar-2002 23:39 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
What were you trying to do Gg?
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 17-Mar-2002 00:42 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Just trying to change the perspective from a fluff one about units using pulse lasers or moving to one about mathematics. I heard somewhere that the person who developed Magic: The Gathering was a mathematician. That impressed me, and it certainly makes sense. Everything in a game is represented by math. So if a system seems out of balance, the best way to fix it is to look at the math involved in the game, and not use a fluff or peer pressure approach. The D12 thing was just an example (although now I am curious and might actually try it).
I picked on the pulse/TC combo and the jumping maneuver because people tend to gravitate to one or the other (or sometimes both, which is worse). Those two do seem out of balance to me, but that's just my opinion.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ronin
ComStar
Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 908
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 17-Mar-2002 14:10 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
I have to agree with Gangrene: the 2d6 bell curve is what makes people upset about pulse/TC/C3 and/or jumping. If the odds were smooth, whether by using a d12 or going to a percentage system and using a d20 or d100 (2 d10s in most cases), then something that shifts the to-hits by a certain ammount will have the same effect regardless of the other variables. A d12 seems like the quickest fix possible, except I would recommend keeping the 2d6 approach for the Hit Location Table since it was balanced around the 2d6 bell curve, and maybe also for the Number of Missles Hit table.
Ronin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
| Posted: 17-Mar-2002 17:49 Post subject: to-hit rolls, munchkinism, and statistics (long) |
|
|
Good write up Gangrene. You took the time to expand on many points I agree with and apply. The bell curve is hte biggest issue. An example was we use to up everyone's gunnery to 3 to speed up games.
This allowed us to do Lance vs. Lance is about 3 hours. You go from a base of 9 to hit to an an 8. Most combat seemed to occur at medium range (+2) the attacker walked (+1) defender had a defense of (+2 move/cover). The curve is what changes this drastically. You go from 15% hits to 30% hits (not exact math but close)
The D12 method works OK, but it does increase the hit ratio on light mechs, thus they die quicker. I tired a 100% system before. Success was not great. Hits occured much more often. Armor was worth more for protection than speed. Biggest problem was the location chart. To many head kills. Maybe the D12 to hit, but still need @2D6 for location.
Gangrene you have missed the ultimate muchkin game though, Champions. Nothing like mathmatical formulas with tons of variations to bring them out of the wood work.
AWAD- Centeurion, was FASA best game for mechanics
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-05:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
