20517 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

The game wasn't balanced already. IMHO, the most game breaking tech update in TT was the DHS.

Got to agree there, that move wreaked the balance between balistics and energy weapons....

[Juodas Varnas]

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

The game wasn't balanced already. IMHO, the most game breaking tech update in TT was the DHS.

I'd argue that Clan Tech was a bit more outrageous than the DHS.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 28 December 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

Got to agree there, that move wreaked the balance between balistics and energy weapons....

If mechs always dissipated 10 heat passively (no internal/external heatsink BS), DHS (at least the IS ones) would actually be balanced with the SHS, because they take 3x the space.

Juodas Varnas, on 28 December 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:

I'd argue that Clan Tech was a bit more outrageous than the DHS.

Take out the Clan DHS and the Clan tech is not too much OP.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Running underweight doesn't break the builds though. They just run underweight.
You could retcon that with heatsinks or something, but honestly - you get to a point where a 'new edition' or 'rework' of TT rules *needs* to make adjustments to help cut through the bloat.

except what does one now do with the spare tonange?

It changes the stock builds, which indeed, from the standpoint of having to revamp RS, possibly miniatures, etc, very much DOES break the fricking build. Especially when you now have to go back and even mildly, redesign HUNDREDS of designs.

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

If mechs always dissipated 10 heat passively (no internal/external heatsink BS), DHS (at least the IS ones) would actually be balanced with the SHS, because they take 3x the space.


Take out the Clan DHS and the Clan tech is not too much OP.

Um.... 20 range, 10 heat/10 dmg -2 bonus 6 ton LPL? Lol.... no it's still broken.

Juodas Varnas, on 28 December 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:

I'd argue that Clan Tech was a bit more outrageous than the DHS.

Just different stages of the power creep.

XL engines even were slightly broken initially, though at least there was a tradeoff (just that usually you could pack so much more firepower it was irrelevant before the clans), but the Gauss and the DHS broke pretty much everything.

Clan Tech simply broke stuff even more, at an ever accelerating pace.

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

BTW, 4 days to the next mech Fafnir!

Don't you mean Crusader?

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

except what does one now do with the spare tonange?

It changes the stock builds, which indeed, from the standpoint of having to revamp RS, possibly miniatures, etc, very much DOES break the fricking build. Especially when you now have to go back and even mildly, redesign HUNDREDS of designs.

They could just update the non-sheet-related weapon stats, like range and heat. Or even better, add a streamlined (and non-advanced) rule that allows ACs to fire more than once in a turn (the bigger the AC, the greater the difficulty for the extra shots).

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

Um.... 20 range, 10 heat/10 dmg -2 bonus 6 ton LPL? Lol.... no it's still broken.

Compared to IS, yes. But that was the point (Clans to be technologically more advanced). At least the Clan weapons are better balanced between themselves (except the light ACs, those remain crappy).

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

XL engines even were slightly broken initially, though at least there was a tradeoff (just that usually you could pack so much more firepower it was irrelevant before the clans), but the Gauss and the DHS broke pretty much everything.

Clan Tech simply broke stuff even more, at an ever accelerating pace.

Indeed. But if there was a simple way to balance things (BV is complicated), like 100 Clan tons = 200 IS tons, everything would be fine.

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

Don't you mean Crusader?

Oh, don't say that. The Crusader is the one mech I'm looking forward the most to see in the game! Also, the Wasp.

Edited by Odanan, 28 December 2017 - 10:54 AM.

[CuriousCabbitBlue]

cause why not 731 mrm range xD lmao

[Sereglach]

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Running underweight doesn't break the builds though. They just run underweight.
You could retcon that with heatsinks or something, but honestly - you get to a point where a 'new edition' or 'rework' of TT rules *needs* to make adjustments to help cut through the bloat.

The game horribly and desperately NEEDS a new edition with severe rework of the rules and stats. I think Jordan Weisman, himself, said it best in one of his recent interviews . . . "The better question is what wouldn't we have done differently?"

Funny thing is that it can be done without even ruining any of the canon builds. Most of it just involves balancing stats and streamlining rules bloat (because lets face it, Battletech has acquired far too much rules bloat over the years).

[Odanan]

CuriousCabbitBlue, on 28 December 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

cause why not 731 mrm range xD lmao

Seems legit.

[Ovion]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

except what does one now do with the spare tonange?

It changes the stock builds, which indeed, from the standpoint of having to revamp RS, possibly miniatures, etc, very much DOES break the fricking build. Especially when you now have to go back and even mildly, redesign HUNDREDS of designs

Yup. And that shouldn't be something to be afraid of.
You won't need to change models, so long as they don't have *extra* weapons - and hell, LOTS of things represent 6-12 variants with a single model anyway, poor argument there.

Record Sheets? That's piss easy to adjust,

Fear of Change is bad, and things need to change for CBT to flourish.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sereglach, on 28 December 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

The game horribly and desperately NEEDS a new edition with severe rework of the rules and stats. I think Jordan Weisman, himself, said it best in one of his recent interviews . . . "The better question is what wouldn't we have done differently?"

Funny thing is that it can be done without even ruining any of the canon builds. Most of it just involves balancing stats and streamlining rules bloat (because lets face it, Battletech has acquired far too much rules bloat over the years).

this is true. In fact I have a post on one the HBS site where I cover some "rules 2.0" I had accrued for house rules over 30 years of play, none of which break or "underweight" a single mech.

[Marauder3D]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 December 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Stinger I dig but that Wasp looks super doofy... especially the head

Shouldn't the Stinger have a Machine Gun in each vambrace? I like the redesign, I think it looks great. But where are those MGs?

[FupDup]

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Yup. And that shouldn't be something to be afraid of.
You won't need to change models, so long as they don't have *extra* weapons - and hell, LOTS of things represent 6-12 variants with a single model anyway, poor argument there.

Record Sheets? That's piss easy to adjust,

Fear of Change is bad, and things need to change for CBT to flourish.

I think the easiest way to handle that would be to have a separate "BT reboot" rule set with its own mechs and guns and stuff. That way people can choose between sticking to the classic or going with the new.

Edited by FupDup, 28 December 2017 - 12:06 PM.

[Ovion]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

this is true. In fact I have a post on one the HBS site where I cover some "rules 2.0" I had accrued for house rules over 30 years of play, none of which break or "underweight" a single mech.

Yeah, but a lot of that will be bandaids, and even more rules bloat and while helping certain aspects, doesn't address the core problem.

FupDup, on 28 December 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

I think the easiest way to handle that would be to have a separate "BT reboot" rule set with its own mechs and guns and stuff. That way people can choose between sticking to the classic or going with the new.

Yup. Most games have editions changes, where rulesets are adjusted, and the chapter is closed on the old.

Nothing stopping you playing the old though, and with BT's nature of many people playing heavily 3025 or 5055 era type stuff, where none of the new stuff matters, it won't affect them in the slightest really...

Classic Battletech comes to encompass everything up to the new, Modern Battletech, and we have an easy distinction of CBT and MBT 1st Edition.

Edited by Ovion, 28 December 2017 - 12:18 PM.

[Odanan]

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Yeah, but a lot of that will be bandaids, and even more rules bloat and while helping certain aspects, doesn't address the core problem.

Yup. Most games have editions changes, where rulesets are adjusted, and the chapter is closed on the old.

Nothing stopping you playing the old though, and with BT's nature of many people playing heavily 3025 or 5055 era type stuff, where none of the new stuff matters, it won't affect them in the slightest really...

Classic Battletech comes to encompass everything up to the new, Modern Battletech, and we have an easy distinction of CBT and MBT 1st Edition.

The first thing they need to do is simplify the rules and make the games shorter. People don't have the patience time anymore to spend 5-6 hours playing a boardgame.

PS: I know that was Alpha Strike was about, but I wanted to see something in between the two rulesets.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

The game wasn't balanced already. IMHO, the most game breaking tech update in TT was the DHS.

That was designed specifically to make the game go faster, though. Clantech tore the game a new one by rendering most of the previous tech flat-out useless by comparison, being so much better that it took them multiple iterations of the BV system to even get close.

[Bishop Steiner]

Marauder3D, on 28 December 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

Shouldn't the Stinger have a Machine Gun in each vambrace? I like the redesign, I think it looks great. But where are those MGs?

Probably, though let's be honest there is zero reason for them to have an exposed barrel, just like many aircraft don't

also






.

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Yup. And that shouldn't be something to be afraid of.
You won't need to change models, so long as they don't have *extra* weapons - and hell, LOTS of things represent 6-12 variants with a single model anyway, poor argument there.

Record Sheets? That's piss easy to adjust,

I can see you haven't ever mass produced, shipped and marketed anything. Making changes across the board for hundreds of designs in dozens of publications is a pretty fricking huge undertaking, whether you choose to believe it or not. Especially for a company with a sum total of about 12 employees.

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Yeah, but a lot of that will be bandaids, and even more rules bloat and while helping certain aspects, doesn't address the core problem.

Yup. Most games have editions changes, where rulesets are adjusted, and the chapter is closed on the old.

Nothing stopping you playing the old though, and with BT's nature of many people playing heavily 3025 or 5055 era type stuff, where none of the new stuff matters, it won't affect them in the slightest really...

Classic Battletech comes to encompass everything up to the new, Modern Battletech, and we have an easy distinction of CBT and MBT 1st Edition.

Interesting how you "know" it's bandaids without ever seeing it.

And short of a massive millions of dollars kickstarter to literally start ground up.. and risk losing ALL the established player base for a niche IP? Good luck with that.

Whatever. Don't have the time, or need to "convince" you of anything. Believe what you will.

Cheers.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 December 2017 - 02:12 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Probably, though let's be honest there is zero reason for them to have an exposed barrel, just like many aircraft don't.

Well, the Shimmy's Stinger DOES have the Machine guns.
Under the arms.

They use the same non-barreled design as his Whammy design.

Edit: Darn it, Bishop ninja-edited his post before i posted this.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 28 December 2017 - 02:13 PM.

[Marauder3D]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Probably, though let's be honest there is zero reason for them to have an exposed barrel, just like many aircraft don't

also

LOL! I honestly didn't see that. Now that I have seen it, I wonder how I missed it. Good redesign. I dig it.
/SMH

Juodas Varnas, on 28 December 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

Well, the Shimmy's Stinger DOES have the Machine guns.
Under the arms.

They use the same non-barreled design as his Whammy design.

Edit: Darn it, Bishop ninja-edited his post before i posted this.

Somehow on that Whammy, that looks more like the MG I was expecting. Maybe because of the cluster of weapons the Whammy normally sports there? I have no idea why it didn't occur to me tho. Doh.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 28 December 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

Well, the Shimmy's Stinger DOES have the Machine guns.
Under the arms.

They use the same non-barreled design as his Whammy design.

Edit: Darn it, Bishop ninja-edited his post before i posted this.

they have a barrel, it's just under the armor. I would venture they are basically 20mm Vulcan Guns, if one removed the armor plates

also... Bishop is

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 December 2017 - 02:19 PM.