Autofire Issues in v3.2

[tbeard1999]

While I'm laughing and scratching my belly at this, I'm also nodding my head in agreement.
...
What I'm seeing looks to me like a GM writing his own house rules, not fully thought-out, with holes, rather than what a professional game designer should be putting together.

Agreed. I'm starting to doubt that any significant amount of in-house playtesting went on before this was released to general playtest.

And while the mechanics don't have to be perfect for playtesting, the important mechanics (like timing/effect) need to be free of fundamental statistical defects. A little quality time on Excel is all that's really required. Even if you don't know how to do the math, you can always get some programmer to do a Monte Carlo simulation for you that will yield the needed data. I am troubled by the fact that this was apparently not done.

In my game designs, I always validate the statistical qualities of the systems.

That's not to say that the system doesn't already have its fans. Most negative (if well meaning and hopefully constructive) feedback on the system posted to the MGT forum seems to get hounded by 2 or 3 rabid MGT fans who drown out all reason.

I've seen that done to others and I've been waiting for them to try it on me. Hasn't happened yet, darnnit

I don't have a grudge against MGT. Hell, I want it to be a good system.

But, like TBeard, I'm tired of seeing these opportunities go by where something great for Traveller could be created when insteads we get the same old milktoast rules that need to be modded and houseruled right out of the gate.

I'm disappointed.

Me too. And while I want MGT to be good, and have attempted to provide detailed, well-supported critiques of the system, I will do my level best to dissuade others from buying it if it turns out to be a piece of crap. Because if it is crap, I want it to die a quick death.

The tragedy is that there is a real opportunity to do something meaningful here. MGT (so far) just ain't it...

 

[Supplement Four]

The tragedy is that there is a real opportunity to do something meaningful here. MGT (so far) just ain't it...

My impression of what's going on behind-the-scenes with MGT is something like this: "Hey! I've got a deadline to get this turned out in two months. Better start getting something scribbled down that's 'good enough'. No time to make something 'great'."

 

[tbeard1999]

My impression of what's going on behind-the-scenes with MGT is something like this: "Hey! I've got a deadline to get this turned out in two months. Better start getting something scribbled down that's 'good enough'. No time to make something 'great'."

If so, then it must die.

 

[atpollard]

If so, then it must die.

Que Darth Vader breathing in the background.

 

[tbeard1999]

Que Darth Vader breathing in the background.

I prefer the theme to The Godfather.

"I hoped that we would come here and reason together. And as a reasonable man, I'm willing to do whatever's necessary to find a peaceful solution to these problems." --Don Vito Corleone

 

[tbeard1999]

Isn't this thread meant to be about discussing a problem and possible fixes for that problem? Dropping Timing/Effect is one possible fix, but some of us would (for our own strange reasons ) prefer to see it kept.

Perhaps, but I'd still like you to ponder my question -- how many "fixes" of that worthless mechanic will it take before you consider that it should be replaced?

Is the answer effectively "no number of fixes and no number of problems will dissuade me from voting to keep this mechanic"? If so, then I won't waste further time talking to you about it.

So far, nearly every objection I've raised has been met with the equivalent of "well, you're right, but howsabout this fix <insert fix that in almost all cases, changes the basic mechanic, yet fails to actually fix the problem>".

And don't you think that Mongoose has an obligation to release a game that doesn't require numerous house-rules for its core mechanic?

On this particular issue, I had already dropped the Optimum range for autofire to Close...

And as already noted, this "fix"--like the others you've suggested IMHO--doesn't really fix the problem that I've identified. In the present case your fix makes it even more likely that autofire attacks at medium range or longer will fail utterly.

This is so contrary to what we've seen with automatic weapons over the last century that I just can't stomach it.

What is required here is a better mechanic. But that isn't possible as long as the timing/effect albatross hangs around.

Trust me; I spent the better part of a weekend trying to fix the timing and effect mechanic--obviously a lot more time than the designer spent testing it. It is not fixable unless you are willing to rework it completely for every intended use. And then, it's not only clumsy, but it's not much of a "universal mechanic", right?

 

[sablewyvern]

As per our lengthy discussion over on the MGT boards, I'm very happy with the probabibility spreads on the basic T/E roll using my blackjack modification. That cleared up every complaint you had raised to date to my satisfaction.

I understand that you felt differently, but I think it's important for this particular conversation to make it clear that I consider your pre-existing complaints solved, without the need for special case rules (just one significant change to the way the dice are read, and some flow-on adjustements).

So, from where I'm standing, this present discussion is simply about a flaw in what is already a special-case use of the T/E system, which is the multiple action sub-system. It seems ludicrous, from that perspective, to advocate dropping the whole system just because a sub-system is flawed.

None of which is an attempt to convince you that your position is wrong. For a start, I'm already working with a slighly different mechanic to the official one. It's also possible I have misread the implications of my own system, and it won't work the way I think it does (unlikely, but possible).

So, in summary, my purpose in these threads is to gain a better understanding of the system for my own ends, as much or more as it is to see the MGT official mechanic improved.

Even if you're entirely right, and the people that have tested and enjoyed the system turn out to be a minority -- well, I'm really not invested in official MGT task system. Gar could write the final draft of the task system lying under a table in a pub semi-conscious in pool of his own vomit*, end up making it worse by several orders of magnitude, and I really wouldn't be bothered. I've got the inspiration I needed to develop a system I really like, and which meets my needs, so they can publish whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. I'd like them to put out the best product possible in every respect, but I have no particular loyalty to them as a company or Traveller as a gameline. Whether anybody outside my gaming group benefits from MGT is ultimately irrelevant to me (and, for the record, no, I'm not particularly concerned about the viability of the extended gameline -- there's piles of material out there already).

Edit to Clarify: I'm not saying that the official system is utterly flawed. While it doesn't behave as I'd like, and I agree with many of tbeard's basic points, plenty of people do seem to be happy with it.


*Purely hypothetical, highly unlikely scenario for mild comedy effect.

 

[tbeard1999]

As per our lengthy discussion over on the MGT boards, I'm very happy with the probabibility spreads on the basic T/E roll using my blackjack modification. That cleared up every complaint you had raised to date to my satisfaction.

I understand that you felt differently, but I think it's important for this particular conversation to make it clear that I consider your pre-existing complaints solved, without the need for special case rules (just one significant change to the way the dice are read, and some flow-on adjustements).

And as noted, I do not agree that your fixes have fixed anything for reasons that I clearly identified.

So, from where I'm standing, this present discussion is simply about a flaw in what is already a special-case use of the T/E system, which is the multiple action sub-system. It seems ludicrous, from that perspective, to advocate dropping the whole system just because a sub-system is flawed.

The flaws are in the core system of the game. And despite your claims to the contrary, your fixes did not resolve my complaints. All you did was break the system differently and I stand on my statistical analysis of your fix.

More importantly, your fixes are not part of the game that Mongoose is publishing. So your defense is equivalent to someone saying "yes, I agree that this car is badly designed and poorly made. But I have a machine shop and am willing to re-engineer it to my taste, so I think it's a fine product. I am also untroubled by the fact that the manufacturer is producing a product that it knows (and that I concede) is defective."

I find such a position absurd on its face.

Gar could write the final draft of the task system lying under a table in a pub semi-conscious in pool of his own vomit*, end up making it worse by several orders of magnitude, and I really wouldn't be bothered.

Then it is pointless talking to you about this further. In essence, you've said that no flaw will be sufficient to dissuade your from praising this game. Since I don't debate religious beliefs, I think we're done.

 

[sablewyvern]

The flaws are in the core system of the game. And despite your claims to the contrary, your fixes did not resolve my complaints. All you did was break the system differently and I stand on my statistical analysis of your fix.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. I realise I haven't fixed things to your satisfation by any stretch. But we're obviously coming at this from very different angles, with different base assumptions and requirements. A fix for me need not be a fix for you.

More importantly, your fixes are not part of the game that Mongoose is publishing. So your defense is equivalent to someone saying "yes, I agree that this car is badly designed and poorly made. But I have a machine shop and am willing to re-engineer it to my taste, so I think it's a fine product. I am also untroubled by the fact that the manufacturer is producing a product that it knows (and that I concede) is defective."

I concede your points appear to have some validity, but at the same time actual play reports don't raise these issues. I am thus undecided as to whether the mechanic, in its official form, is actually as utterly flawed as you present it to be.

I find such a position absurd on its face.

People buy stuff with the intent to improve it all the time (especially cars, just as you used in your example). I don't see it as absurd at all.

Then it is pointless talking to you about this further. In essence, you've said that no flaw will be sufficient to dissuade your from praising this game. Since I don't debate religious beliefs, I think we're done.

That's fairly close to the truth. It would be more accurate to state that the flaws you've pointed out I either don't see as flaws, or have fixed to my satisfaction, with the exception of the autofire issue, which I am still contemplating.

Personally, I do think it's likely that Gar hasn't understood all the ramifications of his system, that the project has been rushed, and the final product will be less than it could (and probably should) have been. I think that the core mechanic presents an interesting concept implemented without sufficient thought, but one which I find coneptually excellent, and workable with adjustment. The char gen process is excellent. The star ship design should be excellent if the feedback from the Mongoose forums is taken on board. World gen may be a marked improvement over previous editions, or may just be same-old same-old, again depending on how feedback is utilised (either way, my system gen is already done, so that's not particularly relevant to me). Advanced tech, software and cyber has been implemented well.

If star ship design and world gen don't end up at a high standard, I'll probably rate the final product a disapointing effort overall. If they are implemented well, overall I'd say the product is well done, with a core mechanic that's going to end up being houseruled in some way or another by many groups, but which is mostly serviceable. The quirks of the mechanic will likely prevent me from labelling MGT a comprehensively superior product, regardless of how the rest of the material turns out, but those quirks are not so dramatic as to ruin the game on their own.

 

[Supplement Four]

People buy stuff with the intent to improve it all the time (especially cars, just as you used in your example). I don't see it as absurd at all.

So, what you're basically saying is: "I like this system so much that, even if it is a little broke, I'm still going to buy it. In fact, I'd buy it even if it was a lot broke. It would take it being extremely broke for me not to buy it."

 

[sablewyvern]

No, and if you read my entire post, rather than just the two sentences you quoted, I think you'll see I'm not saying that. As I think I've made pretty clear, I like the basic concept of the resolution mechanic, and I've found it a relatively simple task to modify to the point where I like it. I think it's a great concept with a less than ideal implementation. The rest of the book appears to vary between excellent and promising.

 

[Supplement Four]

Your comments here and on the MGT forum indicate (and the general tone of your posts) that you're a strong supporter of MGT no matter what flaws are pointed out.

 

[sablewyvern]

Given that I have yet to be shown flaws I consider significant, or which I can't work around, and that it seems unlikely that at this late date anyone will point out anything both new and serious, yes, I'd say that's probably close to accurate in a literal sense.

As to the spirit of your post, if you feel that you can predict my reaction to any hypothetical, unspecified flaw yet to be discovered ... go ahead, I guess. The only way I could prove otherwise would be to cease supporting the game, so I'm not about to try and prove you wrong on principle or something.

 

[sablewyvern]

So, quite a few times, people have suggested fixing the Timing/Effect dice based on colour or somesuch. (So, red is always Timing, white always Effect or what-have-you).

Personally, I think that's defeats a large part of the benefit of T/E (which is giving players meaningful decisions to make), and it doesn't do anything to fix tbeard's fundamental problems with T/E.

However, in the case of autofire (and, multiple tasks generally), using this system would eliminate the core of the problem tbeard has raised specifically with respect to autofire.

It doesn't address the fundamental problems tbeard has with T/E, but it does remove the problem whereby a Timing die fixed to the lowest or highest die is increasingly guaranteed to provide a 1 (or a six) as the die-pool increases.

Yep, tbeard, I realise that in your estimation, it's just another tweak to prop up a crippled system. For those of us who see value in T/E, it is a potential fix for this specific issue, however.

 

[tbeard1999]

Yep, tbeard, I realise that in your estimation, it's just another tweak to prop up a crippled system. For those of us who see value in T/E, it is a potential fix for this specific issue, however.

Interestingly enough, I agree that you lose a lot of whatever benefit the system provides when you deprive the player of choosing which die is which.

However, you may have actually found a fix for autofire that doesn't suck.

On an autofire 4 roll, here are the stats:

-2 modifier: 72% chance of missing; .37 average hits (83%/0.17 single shot); Avg Timing Roll 5.3
-1 modifier: 54% chance of missing; .72 average hits (72%/0.28 single); Avg Timing Roll 4.9
0 modifier: 34% chance of missing; 1.26 average hits (58%/0.42 single); Avg Timing Roll 4.5
+1 modifier: 14% chance of missing; 1.88 average hits (42%/0.58 single); Avg Timing Roll 3.7
+2 modifier: 3% chance of missing; 2.36 average hits (28%/0.72 single); Avg Timing Roll 3.6
+3 modifier: <1% chance of missing; 2.67 average hits (17%/0.83 single); Avg Timing Roll 3.5

Seems a bit coarse, but I can't see a fatal flaw in it. You would deprive the player of having any say in how many segments the shot takes. Also, the incredibly annoying timing artifact emerges -- the worse you are, the faster you do it...

Note that this approach will not fix the base system however. It would still skew wildly to the extremes.