20517 replies to this topic

[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.

[Juodas Varnas]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

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

Yeah, i get that, i just meant that the barrels aren't sticking out like they do in a lot of other MG designs (like the Shimmy's Phoenix Hawk)

[Bishop Steiner]

Marauder3D, on 28 December 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

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



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.

Honestly still a few tweaks I would make to add a little more contour and dynamism to the Singer (same issue with Marauder, Wolverine and many of the other NuSeen, IMO... there is too little variation in the "line" of their limbs... with upper and lower arms/legs being essentially the same width. Nothing inherently wrong with, but by slimming down the upper legs/arms of the mechs, or in some cases upsizing the forearms and lower legs slightly, it makes the machines look WAY more dynamic.

Mind you, not trying to say I am a better artist, just my critique on several of the new designs (especially compared to how dynamic many of them look in Alex's iterations).

But to illustrate:

Shimmering Sword's NuSeen Wolverine (one of the first of the NuSeen to be revealed after Warhammer and Marauder)


My take on his drawing (which I still need to finish, and is also a 6M not the 6R shown)


Again, not trying to say "Hey I draw better", but IMO, by adjusting the proportions some, it adds more contrast and contour to the design, making it visually more dynamic. Still it's HIS design, just slightly tweaked. I think a Stinger could use a touch of this.

(And I still prefer the MWO versions of the Archer, Warhammer and Griffin, while hands down giving Shim the props on the Thunderbolt, Battlemaster (though I read somewhere it's Alex's design, actually), Wolverine and Marauder. The rest fall somwhere in between)

[Ovion]

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

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.

I mean, I have produced, shipped and marketed stuff.
But there's this little thing called a FAQ, and people have this thing called a 'pen'.
There's also the concept of making a new edition.

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

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.

I've seen a few of your proposed change sets
There's a lot of adjustments yes.
But, it's all additive, it's all bloat, it's yet more documents on top that don't address core issues, which was my (and others) point.

As mentioned, a new edition won't lose a player base, when that player base is already fractured, with many refusing to play more than certain eras / techs or rule sets.
Same as you have people with games workshop products that only play certain editions.
Or people that still play dead games, like Halo Fleet Battles and Halo Ground Command.

Maybe the should do a kickstarter for a 'New Edition' of Battletech that makes desperately needed changes to the core ruleset and modernises it, so that it's more accessible.
They'll retain their CBT player base, but then have the chance to break into a booming broader tabletop market, where due to complexity and frankly maddeningly disparate rule sets it makes it difficult to bring new players in.

[Sereglach]

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.

Homebrew depends. It can add rules bloat, but that's not if you're replacing rules entirely; and if you're replacing huge sets of rules bloat with simpler rules then it can be huge improvements. However, I agree . . . the core problem with Battletech is that the core game needs a new edition . . . not more rules on top of rules that already exist. On the other hand, the new rules set can easily be created -and equipment balanced- without changing a single canon loadout.

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

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.

Alpha Strike actually does a wonderful job of beginning to address a lot of the problems with CBT; and it even creates some of the things needed to fix the game, such as:

- Simple Ruler and Hex movement rules (lets face it, nearly all current mainstream miniature-based war games use rulers for movement, so it's easy to adapt to and use).
- Simplification of range rules and brackets (every weapon doesn't need an individual S/M/L range bracket).
- Simplification of special weapon attributes and concepts.
- Simplification of the Heat Scale (easily understood and still punishing to push heat levels)

The funny thing is, all they need to do is fix equipment attributes and find a happy middle-ground between Alpha Strike and CBT to get exactly what a new edition should be. You can adjust the values of anything available without changing anything on a record sheet except (because it's needed to be done) armor points per ton, which would in turn effect armor allocation. However, all of the gameplay mechanics, rules changes, and equipment balancing can easily be done without changing a single canon loadout.

Regardless, if done right then you'd be able to easily shift between Alpha Strike and CBT play styles to cater to the size of the battle you're running. It's not hard and I had already written up a skeleton for it . . . I just honestly haven't put more time into it because I don't have the people to play games with to make me care.

[Ovion]

We need more coherent unit lists too tbh.
1-2 books of ALL mechs, with each sheet giving the availability year(s) and such on it
Then a book of ALL combat vehicles, (and one of all ASF's, or have it in the Combat Vehicle book).
Then if all you need is the Rules + The Units, rather than 1-3 Rules, plus 1-5 books of intermingled Units.

[Brain Cancer]

There are so many units and variants in TT right now they actually had to use a website to show them all.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/

Stats on top of that would probably be nightmare fuel, of course- but it does give time available and such.

[Odanan]

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

I mean, I have produced, shipped and marketed stuff.
But there's this little thing called a FAQ, and people have this thing called a 'pen'.
There's also the concept of making a new edition.

I've seen a few of your proposed change sets
There's a lot of adjustments yes.
But, it's all additive, it's all bloat, it's yet more documents on top that don't address core issues, which was my (and others) point.

As mentioned, a new edition won't lose a player base, when that player base is already fractured, with many refusing to play more than certain eras / techs or rule sets.
Same as you have people with games workshop products that only play certain editions.
Or people that still play dead games, like Halo Fleet Battles and Halo Ground Command.

Maybe the should do a kickstarter for a 'New Edition' of Battletech that makes desperately needed changes to the core ruleset and modernises it, so that it's more accessible.
They'll retain their CBT player base, but then have the chance to break into a booming broader tabletop market, where due to complexity and frankly maddeningly disparate rule sets it makes it difficult to bring new players in.

A new edition COULD work if it had "conversion rules", meaning you could take that old TRO and use it with little changes.

What needs to change in Battletech is the core rules (specially the combat pacing), not exactly the mechs (though some weapons need to be improved, like the lighter ACs).

[Marauder3D]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

Honestly still a few tweaks I would make to add a little more contour and dynamism to the Singer (same issue with Marauder, Wolverine and many of the other NuSeen, IMO... there is too little variation in the "line" of their limbs... with upper and lower arms/legs being essentially the same width. Nothing inherently wrong with, but by slimming down the upper legs/arms of the mechs, or in some cases upsizing the forearms and lower legs slightly, it makes the machines look WAY more dynamic.

Mind you, not trying to say I am a better artist, just my critique on several of the new designs (especially compared to how dynamic many of them look in Alex's iterations).

But to illustrate:

Shimmering Sword's NuSeen Wolverine (one of the first of the NuSeen to be revealed after Warhammer and Marauder)


My take on his drawing (which I still need to finish, and is also a 6M not the 6R shown)


Again, not trying to say "Hey I draw better", but IMO, by adjusting the proportions some, it adds more contrast and contour to the design, making it visually more dynamic. Still it's HIS design, just slightly tweaked. I think a Stinger could use a touch of this.

(And I still prefer the MWO versions of the Archer, Warhammer and Griffin, while hands down giving Shim the props on the Thunderbolt, Battlemaster (though I read somewhere it's Alex's design, actually), Wolverine and Marauder. The rest fall somwhere in between)

I see what you mean. Subtle differences for us non-artistically inclined people. It looks leaner and meaner.

[Sereglach]

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

A new edition COULD work if it had "conversion rules", meaning you could take that old TRO and use it with little changes.

What needs to change in Battletech is the core rules (specially the combat pacing), not exactly the mechs (though some weapons need to be improved, like the lighter ACs).

A new edition not "could" but would easily work without having to change a single TRO entry, the only thing that'd need to happen for balancing the game is acknowledging changes in weapon stats (not tonnage and crits, but damage, heat, ammo counts) and armor allocation/points-per-ton. That can easily be done just like someone using a TRO entry now to make a record sheet. Other than that all of the changes would be in mechanics and gameplay rules. EDIT: Oh, and for people using the old pre-printed Record Sheets, it'd be as simple as swapping simple values of gear and armor stats.

Edited by Sereglach, 28 December 2017 - 05:55 PM.

[CuriousCabbitBlue]

Edited by CuriousCabbitBlue, 28 December 2017 - 11:29 PM.

[Gasoline]

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

BTW, 4 days to the next mech Fafnir!

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

Don't you mean Crusader?

You both spelled Argus wrong

If I had one wish for the New Year, I would love a 'classic' server (locked to 3025 tech). I know it won't happen, but the game was way more fun back then.

Clan tech did the same to MWO as to Battletech... it basically broke the game to some degree. Civil War tech kinda balanced it back slightly, but clan tech still is way better. Also it severly cut the time to kill down by adding higher alpha weaponry.

If MWO continues the timeline into the Jihad we get all the nice things that basically increases the disparity and drops the time to kill dramatically.

At least clan rotaries use more space than the IS version, but the freaking HAG and... can you even imagine a 12 AP Gauss Piranha?

IS gets Light ACs (okay-ish - less weight but reduced range), should already have HVAC (not that they add anything to thrilling) and Variable Speed Pulse Laser tech (shorter range but more damage and way more weight).

[Odanan]

Gasoline, on 29 December 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

You both spelled Argus wrong

If I had one wish for the New Year, I would love a 'classic' server (locked to 3025 tech). I know it won't happen, but the game was way more fun back then.

Clan tech did the same to MWO as to Battletech... it basically broke the game to some degree. Civil War tech kinda balanced it back slightly, but clan tech still is way better. Also it severly cut the time to kill down by adding higher alpha weaponry.

If MWO continues the timeline into the Jihad we get all the nice things that basically increases the disparity and drops the time to kill dramatically.

At least clan rotaries use more space than the IS version, but the freaking HAG and... can you even imagine a 12 AP Gauss Piranha?

IS gets Light ACs (okay-ish - less weight but reduced range), should already have HVAC (not that they add anything to thrilling) and Variable Speed Pulse Laser tech (shorter range but more damage and way more weight).

(the inevitable) Argus would be fine too.

I have the impression MWO won't do any more "time jump" and will stick with the current weapons.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 29 December 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

(the inevitable) Argus would be fine too.

I have the impression MWO won't do any more "time jump" and will stick with the current weapons.

Gasoline, on 29 December 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

You both spelled Argus wrong

I only mention Crusader becaue how "certain" people were that the Sun Spider was a Crusader..... (I did warn ya I'd be talking a little crap about this, at the time!)

That being said, Argus and Chimera are my current (pre MW5 return to Classic chassis) short list. Or a Thug, even if it'd be somewhat "MEH" and redundant... it's still my favorite Assault mech.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 December 2017 - 04:48 AM.

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 December 2017 - 04:47 AM, said:

I only mention Crusader becaue how "certain" people were that the Sun Spider was a Crusader..... (I did warn ya I'd be talking a little crap about this, at the time!)

Oh. OK.

Bishop Steiner, on 29 December 2017 - 04:47 AM, said:

That being said, Argus and Chimera are my current (pre MW5 return to Classic chassis) short list.

Argus, Fafnir and Chimera are really essential to complete the MW4 squad. I guess we could include the Longbow here, right?

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 29 December 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

Oh. OK.

Argus, Fafnir and Chimera are really essential to complete the MW4 squad. I guess we could include the Longbow here, right?

for essential IDK... never felt it had quite the iconic place the others developed... but I'd be OK with it regardless.

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 29 December 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

Argus, Fafnir and Chimera are really essential to complete the MW4 squad.

The Fafnir is needed because it is important in the lore, and it probably would be a capable Mech, too (also, it is not an MW:4-original).
The Argus might turn out alright in MWO although I don't expect miracles from a 60t Mech.
The Chimera would easily be one of the worst Mechs, in need of massive quirks to achieve mediocrity.

As far as the MW:4-squad is concerned, it royally screwed the IS. Uziel, Thanatos, Hellspawn, and Osiris are at best mediocre but more often just bad. And what made most of them bad (hitboxes and hardpoints) is exactly what will make the Chimera bad.

The IS MW:4-originals had their chance and failed miserably. Time to move on.

[TheArisen]

I played MW4 for many hours and honestly the Chimera never got used because it looks terrible and was obviously junk.

[Marauder3D]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 December 2017 - 04:47 AM, said:

I only mention Crusader becaue how "certain" people were that the Sun Spider was a Crusader..... (I did warn ya I'd be talking a little crap about this, at the time!)

That being said, Argus and Chimera are my current (pre MW5 return to Classic chassis) short list. Or a Thug, even if it'd be somewhat "MEH" and redundant... it's still my favorite Assault mech.

I'd like the Crusader as my #1, as it and the Wasp/Stinger/Valkyrie will probably be the last money I spend on MWO. I think we might have to wait a year until the legal case between Discord Pyrite and our fearless defendants comes to a head, but I feel strangely optimistic.

Besides, we know PGI and co loves them some mechpacks, and wouldn't another Project Phoenix pack featuring Wasp/Valkyrie/Crusader/Longbow sell like fricking crazy?

[Marauder3D]

My problem with the Argus is we already have the Rifleman at 60 tons, which is surprisingly fun (no missile hardpoints, I know). Also the Rifleman gets bonus points for being a classic, and an excellent iteration by Alex Iglesias.

My problem with the Chimera is too long to list. Wonky hitboxes, anemic loadout, 40 tons to boot. We have a good Assassin (at the moment, pre-nerf....) and a weak Cicada in that space right now.

I know, its a downer, but I have no love for the MW4 mechs. I wish they were never made canon, they are so fugly and nasty, as a group.

Now, since we are talking Civil War, the Fafnir and Templar (and to a lesser extant, Hauptman) just scream Civil War and have faction flavor. A 55 ton Omni Men Shen could be fun, too. Even with IS-XL. But I digress.....