The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 5, Ep. 15: Balancing for Skill
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Posts
THE CAKE IS A LIE.
THE CAKE IS A LIE.
THE CAKE IS A LIE_____
While execution is a type of skill, I would tend to say that it isn't a very GOOD type of skill or a FUN type of skill - the real fun lies in actually feeling like you're figuring things out, outsmarting the game, rather than just being a tool for executing moves. That's why minimizing execution difficulty is good.
A lot of games really do fail at making people improve their skills gradually; I feel like the original Devil May Cry did a good job of it, while Devil May Cry 3 started too high (but felt good once you got to the right level of skill).
While still using the SF2 reference, you can look at different characters and see the amount of skill required to use them properly as sort of a stepping stone. While characters like Chun-Li, E. Honda, and Blanka are all very good for those starting out in the game, once you get to a character like Ryu/Ken, Dhalsim, or Guile, you'll soon learn that your strategy must change (as they have projectiles).
As with Blanka and E.Honda, Dhalsim and Guile have fairly easy movesets, but are more difficult than the Slap/Kick/Shock spam abilities.
In the case of Ryu/Ken, there is a slightly more difficult learning curve for their moves. The dragon punch is much more difficult than say the flash kick or yoga flame, and their other moves (fireball and hurricane kick) are on par with the difficulty of Dhalsim/Guile.
Then the last, and hardest character to master in the original SF2 was Zangief. He was large and slow, he had no projectiles, no way to avoid them (I don't think you could do it with the spinning punch until SF2:CE, but I could be wrong), and his moveset was unlike many of the other characters. The spinning piledriver is by far the most difficult move to perform on an SNES controller. It also requires precise timing or a good combo to be able to pull off, as you are left very vulnerable afterwords. However, it is the strongest move in the game, taking away 1/3 of the healthbar and knocking the opponent to the ground. So, if you do hit with it, it's almost a guaranteed victory.
I think Street Fighter was actually one of the best examples that you could think of when discussing this topic, as it is very easy to see the progression of skill to power. And, while the progression of skill to character is obvious, you can also find those who can use the lower tier characters (the spam ones) at a higher skill level. My one friend would play with E.Honda and if I let him back me into a corner, I was pretty much done as he would grab me into the bear hug throw and while I'm in that would be spamming the punch button so that I would get hit by the hundred hand slap multiple times on the fall backwards.
This wasn't a noob tactic, as he would actually fight me without doing it most times, but if I made the mistake of getting trapped in the corner he'd make me pay for it.
There's a whole lot about that game I didn't like, but the idea of having to get spells from enemies and even worse having to figure out what spells each enemy had, was horribad.
God forbid you want a spell that a boss has, because then you'll basically stand there taking boatloads of damage in a boss fight like a jackass and be no closer to actually killing the boss.
The most annoying thing that ever got me into fighters was mashing buttons, and winning, and then trying to skillfully p'wn my friends, and getting skilled at it, and arguing about the best way to play... and then getting smacked hard by a noob who was pressing the buttons randomly with their palm/face/butt.
Just like me. (PSA warning: "Where did you learn to do that?!?!" "Wah! I learned it by watching you dad!!!").
I learned by winning, and then losing; and then "we" figured it out, and we were Gods! These buttons mean something!
Except there were all these idiots who didn't do it right but still kept kicking our collective asses! No worries, once they started ACTIVELY TRYING TO WIN, they started failing left-and-right. (By "they," I mean every fighting-gamer who tried figuring out the moves and then instantly started to get worse. ("They" includes "me," btw))
And then our enemies became skilled, both simulated and my i.r.l. fellows, and it was awesome!
(And then we were beaten by our little siblings who smacked the controller with their knees)
It's embarrassing, but if you haven't been taught by a masher, you're lying to yourself and others. A great round of punch-inna-face is about ebb and flow, strategy, and reactions. A genius design allows different skill levels to play a game together. A random happenstance of a game that was meant for hardcore players but unintentionally lets mashers in is fine by me. At least it's not Mario Party.
This is part of why we are sometimes humiliated by the skillz of our children. Accept that we may be pwned by our kids: the important part is schooling them hard enough they can still represent while being tomorrow's leet, as we were before them.
Indeed, SSF2 is a good example of a game which breaks down in many respects. Beyond many moves requiring overly complicated inputs (Zangief, dragon punches to some degree, inconsistency of how to execute moves between different characters) the truth was that input difficulty was no indicator of strength, and indeed is not meant to be in most fighting games, SSF2 included. Moreover, the best things in that particular game were not actually difficult to execute - yeah, dragon punches are great (and importantly) but projectile spam is actually very, very good in general in that game - many characters are wrecked by good projectile spam, and while it isn't ALL that you do during the match, it is a major component. The ability to deal with projectile spam is a major part of what makes a character really "viable" in that game.
The fun skill lies in what you're talking about at the end - trying to actually fight each other, avoid getting backed into corners, ect. Executional memorization is busywork, and memorizing all the controls in that game took a lot of effort - more than it should have. And that was how you gained the skill you needed to just play the game against a live opponent (or even the smarter AIs). That's before you get into the skill of actually beating what your opponent is doing by executing.
Moreover, the game gives no indication of which characters are "easy" or "hard" to play, which is also bad for such things - I know I picked the characters I thought were cool, and I suspect that is how most players pick who they play as.
But for a new player the Grenade launcher is not at all helpful for you. It does not teach you how to play the game as it requires a completely different approach to all situation.
On the other side of the coin you have the problem of really good players using the Grenade launcher against new players, With its massive damage often one-hit-kill and Stupendous Area of effect, it leave new players unable to do anything, it doesn't matter that they both have Grenade launchers because knowledge of the map and understanding of the Weapon comes with experience.
So the problem with the Grenade Launcher is lack of counters, and a fundamental disconnect in the map design. Black Ops II sort of addressed this by putting it second to last on the unlocks for weapons. meaning it will take a lot of dedication to unlock it, and by the time you can use it, you will have a gained some experience in the fundamentals of the game.
So how can the grenade launcher be incorporated into the game so its not annoying for veterans or a double-edged sword for newbies. Easy just limit the Grenade launcher to game modes its appropriated for, Game modes like attack and defend were only the attackers can use it at the cost of there primary weapon.
Kaligor.
One thing that the episode eluded to but really deserved an explicit mention is that the form of balancing for skill you need to implement depends very highly on how players get matched up together. Single player games need a different approach than games that use a ranking system to match similar skill players which need a different approach than games you find your opponent personally in real life which it turn need a different approach from games that mix strangers with disparate skill levels together.
Another issue is halfway in Act 2 as a "glass cannon class". In till then you had no reasons to invest in defensive abilities or defensive stats. Mobs died so quickly, and you could run away from things with ease. Then all of a sudden you may find yourself out of your depth because you have insufficient health/armour/defensive utility abilities. It's good that the game reminds you that things won't be this easy for the whole game. But it doesn't half punish you for "not having the ability to predict this outcome". You then have to painstakingly with every level up 'correct' yourself. This isn't a major problem if you have researched class builds before hand. If you are playing "how you want to play" you may find this very frustrating (I rerolled because I was fed up of my Embermage constantly dying. Since I have respecced [due to a console cheat command] and I find the game so much easier. Either my skill has increased from playing a Berserker through to Game+ or I have using a more efficient character build).
What I see happening in games is either one of two things. Either as you get more skilled at the game, you become more effective at playing it, or there are simply too many "power balanced" moves in the game that make becoming more skilled at the game an ineffective investment of time.
In the first case, yes, you do get the brick wall effect. But it's less clear cut than described. What actually happens is that when the game comes out everyone is bad at it. The skill train is at the base station and ready to roll. As time progress, the train moves forward, the average skill level rises and everyone on the train has a great time. But everyone who came in late, back at the station, has to catch up to join in. If that train is too far ahead, then they face an insurmountable challenge, hit that brick wall, and give up. Eventually, the amount of people on the train atrophies as people get bored and try new things. But so long as they play each other, they will never have either the "brick wall" or "bored of doing the same thing" reason to quit, and will constantly play off each other to get better, at least until they run out of track.
Personally, I like trains, and I see this as a healthy lifecycle of a game. I enjoy the climb, and will try to catch up if left behind. When it finally stops, it's sad, but there are more games out there to find and enjoy.
In the second case, you have a revolving door. People who are sick of doing the same low skill moves for massive benefits wind up quitting as new people who find doing these moves fun jump in and start enjoying themselves off the bat. You don't keep any one player for very long, but you maintain a healthy playerbase by enticing new ones to come in, and old ones to reinstall.
To me, this is the distinction between hardcore and casual games. Hardcore games encourage building skill to become more effective. Casual games allow anyone to be effective immediately. These games suit different types of players and I don't think that either model is superior.
And I'm yet to see a happy balance where skill and experience is rewarded and yet a new player can jump straight into a high skilled game and be effective immediately. I believe these are mutually exclusive. Either you have your low skill FOOs or a higher skill FOOs that over-rules the lower one.
Ideally, every game would have some gated approach to skill balance. So either matchmaking, where the entire playerbase is stratified by skill so that no-one is left behind the skill train and yet new players can feel immediately effective against new players, or FOOs that can be turned off as the player skill level increases. For an example of the latter, look at competitive Team Fortress 2.
TF2 has the crit mechanic which is a 3x damage multiplier on random shots in normal matches. This helps new players get more kills (even though players who get more damage, i.e skilled players, get more crits) because they fight losing battles all the time. If a skilled player gets a crit against a new player, it doesn't normally matter because the skilled player would normally win the conflict otherwise he would have not begun fighting in the first place. However if the new player gets a crit, and aims and hits the skilled player, suddenly the tables are turned and the skilled player is, if not dead, at least severely injured and losing the battle. This helps the new player win a matchup which he probably should not have fought in the first place.
As a result of this, competitive TF2 pretty much universally turns random crits off. There is not much point trying to play skillfully if a player can get the blessing of the RNG and turn a battle, if not the match, on its head through a conveniently timed crit. As a result, competitive TF2 often draws ire from the pub community because it is not the same game. And it's not. But they both serve different communities and different player styles, and so TF2 marches on as a hat wielding mercenary dress-up abomination.
So really, if you want all the people, you either stratify your players through matchmaking, or segment the community into different games with different rules and sell the casuals hats.
Otherwise feel free to make your punishing skill curves or your constant player churning anyone can play games. Either strategy is fine, but it's not going to satisfy new or old players respectively.
then I picked up Chun Li taking down the bonus car and other things just felt so right and smooth
As I was composing the above paragraph, I did remember a specific example of a FOO strategy paying off in a tower defense game called Cursed Treasure. Essentially, you get 3 basic tower types: Archer tower with medium damage and range with a decent fire rate; Fire tower with a small range but high RoF and damage; Ice tower with long range and high damage with slow fire rate. At first, you're required to mix and match these towers to proceed. But as you progress, you can specialize your towers. In my case, I ended up dumping everything into my Ice towers to the point that they could kill anything in 1-2 shots, keep 3 shots in reserve during downtime, cast fear on their target 33% of the time, and fire on targets clear on the other end of the area. After a given point, I was able to clear the entire game using only those towers.
I like to look at it like this: in all games, there are base abilities, and meta abilities.
Base abilities are the in-game skills your character has. Jumping. Shooting things. Etc.
Meta abilities are the game-transcending skills required of you, the player, to succeed in-game. Learning how enemies' sight-lines trigger them aggro. Being cautious in open spaces. Learning to scavenge efficiently.
What this video is basically saying is that, the more skill a base ability requires to use, the less powerful it should be. Ideally, all base abilities have the same net effect.
What that means for the skillful player is that, rather than learning a few secret techniques and bulldozing all opponents, they must instead become better at the meta-game (fighting game fans will be nodding vigorously here). This means that, rather than have access to more powerful base abilities, the advantage the skillful player has over the amateur is a RICHNESS of control. The amateur can only flail his hand wildly, where the skillful player understands how to move each individual finger.
The skillful player therefore still has a distinct advantage, but in a way the designers intend.
To put it another way: suppose we have a race on a curved track. The skillful player is a Nascar machine: fast, capable, and fluidly controlled. The amateur player is a V1 rocket. Faster, sure -- but totally unrefined, and lacking in subtlety and fine control.
Maybe the rocket will pull it out in the straightaways, but a Nascar car will beat a V1 rocket in a five-lap race every time.
As always, Dark Souls is a good example here. Players lament the backstab ability for its ease of use and exorbitantly high amount of damage; and, like the noob tube, you will sometimes see a more skilled player done in by an amateur's lucky backstab.
And yet skilled players will be the first to tut-tut and tell you that a backstab is obvious, easily avoided (lag notwithstanding), and anyone done in by an amateur fishing for backstab opportunities needs to go back to school.
On the other hand, I feel no discussion of online multiplayer skill is complete without also mentioning lag or hacking. No one's reflexes can be two seconds in the past, and regular players don't have auto aim. Veterans will use FOOS in such situations. In team games you will also find yourself in situations where you need to give your team massive area support straight out of the box, and having a rarely used class loaded down with FOOS will do that.
FOOS can also be relative. The handgun from Halo was not a FOOS, but it was a Second Order weapon; which was often reguarded as a FOOS by many players. Which didn't stop it from being loads of fun or challenging when using it at long range or in handgun only games.
Basically I just love to hear you guys talk about game balance in general. It's fascinating.
For 95% of the game, stores sold cheap little one-shot boxes of lightning that could pulverize everything in the game. As a kid I found this awesome and never bothered doing anything else. Why develop your classes or equip weapons when you can KABOOM cheaply?
Next to last boss? Immune. And by this point, I had no other options open to me because the game never encouraged me to do use anything else. Ten hours of play wasted, game turned off, and ever since then I've been VERY hesitant to play RPGs because I don't wanna make a bad build decision and get screwed later.
this is the most blatant way to "casualize" game, this is the big reason why game nowadays tries to cater "broader audience" which remove mechanics because "too hard" or "too complicated"..
it all good on theory but actually hurt veteran in long shot...
no wonder now we have shittons 60$ hollywood 4 hour campaign no brain call of duty run and gun..
This isn't actually true. And indeed just shows a deep-rooted psychological flaw that many people have called bimodal or "black and white" thinking.
More skill = better is almost universal. Look at Magic. People think of it as a random game, and yet the better player wins an enormously high percentage of the time, especially if there is a sizable skill gap; I can beat most players without even really trying very hard, but against good players, its hard, and against the very best players it is quite rough - I win maybe 1 game in 3 against PT quality material, which means I can do well enough to scrape my knuckles, but never actually win any "real" tournament with good players. Or at least, I could when I quit playing.
The question, then, is how crushing it is, and how easy it is to find an appropriate opponent. In Starcraft 2, for instance, it is okay that the very best players would completely crush a new player in an unfun game because they just don't play new players - its a primarily two player or team oriented game and you play against people of similar skill level.
On the other hand, if you look at a game like TF2 or Counterstrike, you're far more likely to be playing with people of mixed skill. In this sort of game, it is very important for the noob to not be completely useless - they need to be able to get at least some kills. I think a good example of a weapon that helps with this is the automatic shotgun of counterstrike - it isn't the best weapon in the world, but it is not the most expensive either and it can get you some kills. You won't be the feared member of your team, but you can at least contribute, and sometimes even the best player makes a mistake, goes around that corner, and takes a shotgun to the face.
It really depends on the kind of game. In an FPS, its actually very much possible for a new player to do something useful, because usually in those games, if you get shot in the head or take a point blank shot or two from a shotgun you are toast - even if you are an amazing player, sometimes the newbie will get off a "lucky" shot or you'll make a mistake that gets you killed - you get ambushed, or you just don't notice them until it is too late, or you're a bit slow on the draw, or outnumbered and the newbie is the one who gets the kill.
In a game like an RTS or Magic or a fighting game, yeah, the newbie is utterly doomed. It is much more okay for games like this to have that aspect though because it is typically only two or four players, meaning that it is easy to find other games with people more your level.
Indeed, one of the really lousy things about a lot of MOBAs is the fact that, unlike in a lot of other games, if you have a really bad player on your team, it actually makes the other team actively better against you personally, which leads to a lot of bitter recriminations and unpleasantness. Not to mention the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I will note that a lot of competitive players are, in fact, utter scrubs in this regard. Randomness does not necessarily make a game less skill intensive, and (perhaps ironically) actually often acts to make it MORE skill intensive. Magic, for instance, is a hideously skill intensive game - arguably one of the most skill intensive games of all time, and almost certainly the most skill intensive card game. And yet, you can get mana screwed and mana flooded and get unlucky. There is a joke in the community though: "Good players draw good cards." The truth behind the statement is simple: a good player optimizes their chances through the randomness. The best players do win pretty consistently. Which means... well... the randomness hasn't hurt the game at all, and indeed has helped it.
The main problem with TF2's randomness is the fact that, unlike in magic, there is little you can do to manipulate it. You simply know that it is a factor. It is not necessarily a bad thing - the fact is, randomness exists in a lot of ways in games that people don't even think about. In lots of games, shooting full auto makes your accuracy go down. Running makes your accuracy go down. But sometimes, you will get a headshot while doing something, even though you didn't have a huge chance of doing so. The fact that you can do so changes the optimal strategy; it doesn't make the game less skill intensive than if you always had perfect accuracy, indeed it does something else - it tends to make it more so, as knowing when to go for it is important to learn.
Just because a competitive community does things some way doesn't mean they're not being retarded. Look at the SSBB community for an example of a lot of bad stage rules, because certain players hate hazards, especially "random" hazards, as well as the lack of items, even though many items are perfectly acceptable.
Note that this needs to be skill in how to use it properly, NOT difficulty in execution, which is why using a fighting game example was such a bad idea.
This is actually really terrible design. The V1 rocket is just a trap. Its a pretend option. You never want something like that to exist.
I never met this in the entire series.
I started out as a soldier with a sniper rifle, adrenaline rush, and backup weapons in the first game.
I ended as a soldier with a sniper rifle, adrenaline rush, and a backup weapon that I almost never used in the last game.
Turns out, being a soldier with a sniper rifle and adrenaline rush lets you beat pretty much everything. And the one time it was not really great (Kai Leng), I couldn't change my loadout. So I just fought him until I got down the pattern and just sniped everything quickly, and threw lots of grenades. Oh boy.
The f2p cash shop of LoL is not "good for the game" from a gameplay standpoint, but apart from the levelling mechanics in LoL, I would argue that if you're going to go F2P in a MOBA type game, the LoL model is actually very close to correct - get rid of the levelling system and you'd be pretty much set.
I will note that a lot of very ignorant players don't understand that complexity is not actually inherently good. Complex gameplay is good, but complex execution is not, and more options isn't actually necessarily better.
In Guild Wars 2 there is a thief skill called Infiltrators Signet that has a passive ability that my thief gains 1 extra initiative every 10 seconds. That passive is actually weak as you gain 1 initiative every second anyways but my thiefs' traits and abilities benefit from it despite being weak.
When you activate the skill, you shadow step to your target and break stun. For the longest time I though it was only useful for PvP which I didn't do much of. When will I struggle to close distance between me and a NPC? They are not smart enough to kite. Why would I bother activating it and get rid of the passive until it recharges just to teleport to an enemy to attack? An enemy that doesn't flee nor kite, it's useless in PvE.
I feel like a total idiot, for the longest time, I could have used that skill in so many situations. A good half of my thiefs deaths in PvE was because of stun. I would get knockdown by a Nightmare Hound and him and his buddies would eat my face. Now if they pin me, WHOOSH, I shadowstep away. Now I use it all the time, not only to break stun but to shadowstep out of danger. A massive fire storm incoming and no endurance to dodge? WHOOSH, out of there.
The best way to each others the next level of Foo Strategy is to give them a skill or ability that grants them a passive but also gives a use when you activate it.
If other TF2 players were masochists like me and started playing with a class that has a high skill floor (in my case, Scout), meaning a lot of skills that you have to master before you can even survive, let alone do well with, than you know what it's like to get demolished for months on end before even finishing a round with more kills than deaths. Now granted, this became rewarding as now-a-days I can Scout-stomp KOTH maps (barring any Gunslinger pricks...) to the point of dominating half the enemy team, because I've mastered many skills that a Scout player needs to be really good. This is an example of a high skill-ceiling, meaning a lot for a player to learn and practice before they can move from holding their own in a round and actually doing really well in it. (Please note: This is a Pubber/low-level HL perspective and just some general observations. I have no delusions of taking on Clockwork some day.)
Now, if every class were like this the game would be extremely frustrating, but because of intelligent game design, they're not. TF2 has Soldier and Heavy for that. Both classes have low skill floors, so they are really accessible for new players to learn the game with. For Soldier, you have to learn to utilize splash damage to get kills, and some basic rocket-jumping to get into new positions, to start holding your own in a round. It's when you learn to use rockets for mobility, airshots, dive-bombs, intelligent use of your low clip sizes, hitscan aim with your shotgun, how to weapon heckle, and other skills like that, that you become a truly good Soldier, and any TF2 player knows how much a good Soldier can shit on an enemy team. This is why Soldier is so often recommended to new players, as he is easy to get the basics of, but has tons to learn and is useful at every skill level. Heavy, on the other hand, is good for people to start with, but not necessarily to stick with. He has an astronomically low skill floor and skill ceiling, as after you learn to jump-rev, position yourself and track, you've basically learned it all. It's true that a really good Heavy can be an incredible powerhouse in any game mode, but for many he quickly becomes a FOO-Skill in and of himself, as when they meat better players and he becomes less and less effective, they are forced to learn a class with a higher skill ceiling if they want to do well in the game.
Well, this became way more of a dissertation than I wanted it to be... I need to spend less time on SPUF...
If other TF2 players were masochists like me and started playing with a class that has a high skill floor (in my case, Scout), meaning a lot of skills that you have to master before you can even survive, let alone do well with, than you know what it's like to get demolished for months on end before even finishing a round with more kills than deaths. Now granted, this became rewarding as now-a-days I can Scout-stomp KOTH maps (barring any Gunslinger pricks...) to the point of dominating half the enemy team, because I've mastered many skills that a Scout player needs to be really good. This is an example of a high skill-ceiling, meaning a lot for a player to learn and practice before they can move from holding their own in a round and actually doing really well in it. (Please note: This is a Pubber/low-level HL perspective and just some general observations. I have no delusions of taking on Clockwork some day.)
Now, if every class were like this the game would be extremely frustrating, but because of intelligent game design, they're not. TF2 has Soldier and Heavy for that. Both classes have low skill floors, so they are really accessible for new players to learn the game with. For Soldier, you have to learn to utilize splash damage to get kills, and some basic rocket-jumping to get into new positions, to start holding your own in a round. It's when you learn to use rockets for mobility, airshots, dive-bombs, intelligent use of your low clip sizes, hitscan aim with your shotgun, how to weapon heckle, and other skills like that, that you become a truly good Soldier, and any TF2 player knows how much a good Soldier can shit on an enemy team. This is why Soldier is so often recommended to new players, as he is easy to get the basics of, but has tons to learn and is useful at every skill level. Heavy, on the other hand, is good for people to start with, but not necessarily to stick with. He has an astronomically low skill floor and skill ceiling, as after you learn to jump-rev, position yourself and track, you've basically learned it all. It's true that a really good Heavy can be an incredible powerhouse in any game mode, but for many he quickly becomes a FOO-Skill in and of himself, as when they meat better players and he becomes less and less effective, they are forced to learn a class with a higher skill ceiling if they want to do well in the game.
Well, this became way more of a dissertation than I wanted it to be... I need to spend less time on SPUF...
Just my 2 cents.
I think on Virtua Fighter, for being anti-FOOS. But too much so. The sheer volume of critical but, largely until VF4's thorough tutorials, techniques and information just casually omitted was easily crippling to it's growth.
Sure Jacky and Sarah are beginner-friendly...for about 5 seconds. Then the jab/flurry combos get blocked, and our unfortunate neophyte is introduced to the Throwable On Block property of those string-enders. And of course not told about how Throw Escapes work. And how much of making Throw Escapes work relies on both fantastic timing (8 frames of 60fps to react, better pre-load the commands!) and knowing your opponent's possible range of throws they can use. Oh, and how those throws are actually executed. Good times.
For all that Tekken is thriving (strong FOOS balance in that one) and VF is basically dead unless Sega decided to start dev on VF6 and not tell anyone.
For my 2c VF also had a terrible problem with uninspired character designs, but that's probably a later topic.
Again, loved the topic. See you next week.
Just a parting note, but that's kind ironic to have those problems with missiles.
That's the exact point of them in RL Warfare. They're accurate, too fast to merely "dodge", and can a load warhead that makes any solid projectile look like a spitwad.
I've played Battletech on and off since the 80's and one of the key caveats to the whole setting was that guided weaponry and computer targeting were overpriced and under-reliable. It had to be, so that there'd be a point to these huge war machines lumbering around to do more then get iced by Elementals with Space Javelins hiding in the bushes.
Except for a few characters, X-rays are for the most part useless and extremely situational in higher levels of play. All they do is burn meter that could be used to break out of a damaging combo or use better moves, but are worth it if the player has full meter and knows he/she can close the match out by using one. More damaging combos can be learned that use one bar of meter (one EX move) or even no meter at all. When I play at tourneys at my college, lots of people are just casual and throw X-ray attacks. This is their FOO strategy. Learning the combos requires much more skill, and none of them seem to know full combos. Taking the time to master the combo requires more skill, but allows more defensive options. Noobs don't get shut out if they can land an X-ray, and end rounds having done a nice chunk of damage without putting any time into learning the game.