Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unit Rating (Reputation) does not handle mothballed units logically #2454

Open
Tecmes opened this issue Mar 7, 2021 · 8 comments
Open

Unit Rating (Reputation) does not handle mothballed units logically #2454

Tecmes opened this issue Mar 7, 2021 · 8 comments
Labels
(RFE) Enhancement Requests for Enhancement, new features or implementations Unit Rating Unofficial Anything that is not an official BT rule, outside of AtB

Comments

@Tecmes
Copy link

Tecmes commented Mar 7, 2021

MM 0.48.0 Java 11 on Win10

Talking about the company's reputation, called Unit Rating on the Command Center pane.
When clickikng Unit Rating Details it breakdowns this value.

There seem to be an issue with the Support value. You receive an actual bonus if you have more Techs than needed, However to compute this it uses the currently needed techs, which does NOT include mothballed units. Therefore, when waiting for a contract, you can mothball everything (likely the case) and receive a bonus. But really, your force is still needing those techs...

I don't think this issue is tackled at all in CampOps, so it would be a slight departure from the RAW.

@BowtieBob
Copy link

The whole purpose of mothballing units is so that they are not needing to be maintained on a constant basis.
Just be cause you can artificially raise your rating by mothballing your units doesn't mean that you should.

@Tecmes
Copy link
Author

Tecmes commented Mar 7, 2021

That is not a cheap attempt at raising unit rating... Mothballing units is a normal procedure in-between contracts that I expect everyone does. It should not mean that your force somehow is temporary better outfitted with techs...

@gsparks3
Copy link
Collaborator

gsparks3 commented Mar 7, 2021

The downside is that if you take mothballed units into account, campaigns like my one campaign where I have a good number of active mechs and a HUGE pile of mothballed spares take an unnecessary penalty. I don't plan on activating those spares until I actually need them.

@Tecmes
Copy link
Author

Tecmes commented Mar 7, 2021

Good point. I don't see a way around this, then.

@binaryspica
Copy link
Contributor

Although it is just me, but I am planned to run an Against the Bot campaign with full sets of premade custom stuffs that is effectively the list of the units I want to buy during the gameplay, gm add all, and mothballed them all except for something with beginning then reactivate it when I have enough money to 'buy' it. I did it just because I want to match the order of the unit number without touching XML editor much, and in this case 'mothballed' units are not on my current disposal right now thus it does not needs any techs as well.

Yes I know that it is the odd case, but you know reactivating it manually is not quite easy job either. I think that it is not so easy to exploit it. Although your point is still valid.

@RAldrich
Copy link
Contributor

I was actually thinking about this in the context of "I like to mothball my equipment for transport, but I hate having to re-assign crew and techs and the log spam it creates".

One possible solution would be to allow crew and techs to remain assigned to mothballed units, and then calculate the number of techs required (for the unit rating) from the number of MechWarriors assigned to mechs, regardless of their mothball status.

This obviously increases the blast radius of the code change a bit, but might work.

@Windchild292 Windchild292 added the Unofficial Anything that is not an official BT rule, outside of AtB label Mar 23, 2021
@Windchild292 Windchild292 added the (RFE) Enhancement Requests for Enhancement, new features or implementations label Jun 18, 2022
@IllianiCBT
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing as resolved

@IllianiCBT
Copy link
Collaborator

On second reading, this isn't actually resolved by #4605 re-opening.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
(RFE) Enhancement Requests for Enhancement, new features or implementations Unit Rating Unofficial Anything that is not an official BT rule, outside of AtB
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants